Telegraph - FAN on Rangers board

[BEARGER 1,830]

Rangers fans could help fund transfers in return for seat on the board

The proposal comes from a former director of the Rangers fan share-owning group Club 1872 CREDIT:GETTY IMAGES

•  Roddy Forsyth, scottish football correspondent

3 JANUARY 2019 • 6:01PM

Rangers have been urged to go into partnership with supporters to unlock a potential income stream of up to £6 million a year. The proposal – from a former director of the Rangers fan share-owning group, Club 1872 – comes as Steven Gerrard began to strengthen his squad for a potential title challenge.

Gerrard scored his first victory over Celtic under Brendan Rodgers on Saturday but, while these arch-foes are neck and neck at the top of the Scottish Premiership, the financial disparity is still considerable.

At Rangers’ recent AGM, it was revealed that interest-free loans had risen from £15.9m in 2017 to £23.4m (amortised to £21.3m), with £19.8m due to be converted into equity in July 2019. Rangers made a £14.7m loss on income of £32.7m, compared to Celtic’s £17.3m profit on turnover of £101m.

The figures have prompted Bruce Taylor, a shareholder who was until recently a director of Club 1872, to call for rank-and-file supporters to be represented on the Ibrox board in return for regular investment in the club.

“We are in the hands of investors and not institutions and we don’t have a problem so long as the investors continue to be friendly,” said Taylor. “I believe this board has the best interests of Rangers in mind but the risk is that an individual might have to off-load a shareholding, perhaps leading to someone like Mike Ashley being introduced, whose focus was on financial return rather than football development and performance.”

With 600 supporters’ clubs globally and an estimated worldwide fan base estimated to run into millions, Taylor believes that this is an asset yet to be mined for a much greater worth. “By Club 1872 projections, a monthly subscription of £7.50 (£90 annually) is 19.1% of what fans pay each season to watch – or two pints of beer per month,” he said.

“In the past fans have donated large amounts of money in 2011/12 when Rangers’ future was uncertain, or when Hearts fans were faced with rescuing their club after the reign of Vladimir Romanov. They would have to be convinced that they would have an input to board decision-making and be made aware of the options and risks of input into high-risk decisions.

“This could be facilitated by organisations like Club 1872, which currently has around 7500 members – or The Foundation of Hearts, who will eventually take control at Tynecastle - if boards allowed fan representation, with due acknowledgement for the need to observe confidentiality in certain circumstances.”

 

Taylor acknowledged, however, that there are institutional barriers yet to be broken down before large-scale fan investment could be a norm. David Riley recently became fan representative of the St Mirren Independent Supporters’ Association on the Paisley club board, having first stood in 2016, when lack of interest took him aback.

“I must admit I was shocked to see just three people standing for election at the time. Supporters have a lot of views on how their football club is run, so I had imagined a number more would have gone for the role,” Riley said.

Taylor agrees. “Scotland is still in the very early stages of this idea and club boards still tend to be stand-offish and conservative, favouring traditional ownership models - and some fans are against any challenge to the status quo,” he said. “About 10% are convinced of the need to be active and 10% would never be convinced.

“Most of the people you meet listen and make supportive remarks. The job is to bring them into membership.”

Club 1872 currently controls 9.5% of Rangers’ stock, with the ultimate aim of having 50,000 members and a 25% shareholding. If that should be achieved – the target date is between 2022 and 2025 - an annual subscription income of £6 million is possible in theory but, for such support, fans would inevitably want a say in spending, especially on players.

 “This would be the point of having a director and a link between Club 1872 and the main board of RIFC plc or, in the case of the Foundation of Hearts, when eventually fans take control of the club from Ann Budge. At Rangers, I initially imagine decisions taken by a traditional board augmented with a fans’ representative.

“If the idea proves itself then the balance may move towards increased or total fan ownership. Previously, I have said that the role of Club 1872 would be to channel the voices of many fans so that something workable could emerge in a boardroom to support good decision-making. Importantly, fans would be involved and they would not be by-standers.”

An obvious objection is that, even with a high subscription rate – and even if applied to all Scottish clubs - the return would still be dwarfed by the revenues available to Premier League clubs in England. “Do we accept this as a good reason for acceptance and no action, or as a challenge?” Taylor said.

“When I was with Club 1872, I travelled to RSCs and spoke to many fans, working closely with another director who had membership as his portfolio. Fans are extremely close to the club and they care massively.

“The memory of 2012 is fresh for many of these people. They are intelligent and remember history. They do not have a lead apart from through the club. This would be about giving fans a real say.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

[forlanssister 3,114]

We already have fans funding our transfers (and a hell of a lot more) some with seats on the Board others content to stay out of the limelight.

 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Im with bruce on this. I 

[BEARGER 1,830]

1 hour ago, forlanssister said:

We already have fans funding our transfers (and a hell of a lot more) some with seats on the Board others content to stay out of the limelight.

 

 

I get your point. But the ex Club1872 board member makes a good point. What happens if one of our main shareholders is forced to sell in the future, how do we ensure that the share stay in the good guys hands?

[forlanssister 3,114]

1 minute ago, BEARGER said:

I get your point. But the ex Club1872 board member makes a good point. What happens if one of our main shareholders is forced to sell in the future, how do we ensure that the share stay in the good guys hands?

The time for Club 1872 to push for a Board seat was when they were needed to purchase Ashley's shares but they f*&ked it up now that ship has sailed. Like it or not they will become less and less relevant with the passing of time as their shareholding decreases with the inevitable dilutions.

 

Club 1872 is simply a dog's breakfast, it could have been the vehicle for fan participation in the Club but the shameful manipulation of events (remind me again how many Rangers First meetings Richard Gough attended whilst he was on the Board?) have rendered it impotent.

 

Being told that they would have to go through the SLO to contact the Board says it all really.

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, forlanssister said:

The time for Club 1872 to push for a Board seat was when they were needed to purchase Ashley's shares but they f*&ked it up now that ship has sailed. Like it or not they will become less and less relevant with the passing of time as their shareholding decreases with the inevitable dilutions.

 

Club 1872 is simply a dog's breakfast, it could have been the vehicle for fan participation in the Club but the shameful manipulation of events (remind me again how many Rangers First meetings Richard Gough attended whilst he was on the Board?) have rendered it impotent.

 

Being told that they would have to go through the SLO to contact the Board says it all really.

On the money

[der Berliner 3,744]

Yep, "democratic fan ownership" may work in some places, much like democracy may be the finest political thing on Earth, from a Western point of  view. But you also need the people and the culture to go with either. A few (!) German football clubs have some sort of fan ownership, but none are actually going places or are not in a state of constant "turmoil", leadership-wise.

 

As FS has said, we have 4 Bears leading the club now, as well as a large percentage of share in the hands of Club 1872. So virtual "fan-ownership" is actually achieved already and all this sniping at King or the 3 Bears is uncalled for. There is no doubt that the rank and file supporter wants a say or make his/her opinion heard - and fair enough. But unless vehicles like Club 1872 sort themselves out and have a few leading figures accepted by a large percentage of its members as a figurehead/-s, the Board will not really consider having someone on there who is not representing the full opinion and support of Club 1872. Hence probably the SLO contact route in the here and now.

[BEARGER 1,830]

3 hours ago, der Berliner said:

Yep, "democratic fan ownership" may work in some places, much like democracy may be the finest political thing on Earth, from a Western point of  view. But you also need the people and the culture to go with either. A few (!) German football clubs have some sort of fan ownership, but none are actually going places or are not in a state of constant "turmoil", leadership-wise.

 

As FS has said, we have 4 Bears leading the club now, as well as a large percentage of share in the hands of Club 1872. So virtual "fan-ownership" is actually achieved already and all this sniping at King or the 3 Bears is uncalled for. There is no doubt that the rank and file supporter wants a say or make his/her opinion heard - and fair enough. But unless vehicles like Club 1872 sort themselves out and have a few leading figures accepted by a large percentage of its members as a figurehead/-s, the Board will not really consider having someone on there who is not representing the full opinion and support of Club 1872. Hence probably the SLO contact route in the here and now.

As I have said this guy Taylor(I don’t know him) has a point. What happens if one of the good guys has to sell up? The shares could fall into the hands of another Ashley. Everything is looking good at the moment but things can turn sour, as we all know. Club1872 is not perfect but all we have at moment.

[rbr 1,256]

3 minutes ago, BEARGER said:

As I have said this guy Taylor(I don’t know him) has a point. What happens if one of the good guys has to sell up? The shares could fall into the hands of another Ashley. Everything is looking good at the moment but things can turn sour, as we all know. Club1872 is not perfect but all we have at moment.

But we don't have club1872 , the club basically dictate the agenda , they have people sitting in on meetings that are neither members nor elected by the fans , its been a sell out from the day our company secretary came up with the entire scheme.

[BEARGER 1,830]

2 hours ago, rbr said:

But we don't have club1872 , the club basically dictate the agenda , they have people sitting in on meetings that are neither members nor elected by the fans , its been a sell out from the day our company secretary came up with the entire scheme.

Ok, we have no Club1872. What do we do,about the possibility of one or more of the good guys having to sell up? How do we retain these shares in the best interests of the club?