If You're Going to San Francisco

[der Berliner 3,987]

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

Takeover rumours have been doing the rounds for a while now so interested to see some meat being put on the bones. No doubt the club needs new investment and fresh eyes but goes without saying source of such needs to be credible. 49ers ownership is interesting in that regard.

Better this than any one single billionaire / US-oligarch type of chap with only business in mind. Mind you, my local ice-hockey team is owned by the Anschutz Entertainment Group, which in turn owns all these Uber / Barclaycard Arenas and O2 Worlds in Europe, as well as the L.A. Kings, L.A. Galaxy, Hammarby IF, Los Angeles Lakers etc. ...

[CammyF 8,998]

Would be better if it was The Bears or The Patriots right enough.

 

Anyway, if Chris Jack is running with this, must be something in it. 

[ranger_syntax 4,604]

Sounds bad to me.

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,914]

Don't understand the excitement at being used as a portfolio asset by an American VC. Maybe I'm wrong. They will invest probably but will want a return. What does that look like?

 

It does explain the urgency and pace in which we slashed our wage bill this season. Reduce operating costs and make us a more attractive option.

[Devil's advocaat 1,727]

6 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Don't understand the excitement at being used as a portfolio asset by an American VC. Maybe I'm wrong

I think the excitement is merely a sign of getting away from a situation, rather than the unknown situation that we may be running towards.

[JohnMc 3,020]

I appreciate this is all speculation and must be treated with a pinch of salt, although at first glance there does seem to be some substance to it. 

 

I can see the attraction of it to our current board. They're getting no thanks currently, a significant and vocal percentage of our support are quite critical of them and they face further seasons of managed decline, or downsizing at least, with little prospect of that changing short term. Most of them invested with their hearts, I imagine their heads are wondering if that was the right decision now. So this opportunity, if it is is realised, might be very attractive to quite a number of our significant shareholders. 

 

Personally it's not how I want to see Rangers owned. I'm naturally wary of any business with the words 'venture capitalist' anywhere near them. I've worked with a number of companies over the years who welcomed investment from venture capitalists but later regretted it. They want a return, that's all that matters to them, it's all about turning a profit. How anyone expects to make a profit out of Scottish football is beyond me. I worry that the plan is to make us a step in a pyramid, a pyramid that will almost certainly have an English side at its apex. That's where the potential to make money lies, so it makes sense that's where the focus is. 

 

This group have no love for Rangers. They have no sense of our history, our rivalries, what's important to us, our position in the culture here and our demands and expectations. We'll be an asset, a brand to hawk, a page on a ledger. Someone decried our club as being like a bowling club recently. Perhaps, but at least there's some accountability around a bowling club committee, they need to walk and live among us. I do accept that they won't want to destroy the club, not deliberately at least. They might introduce good governance, new ideas, fresh investment and indeed some success on the park, it's entirely possible. 

 

I suspect, not for the first time, I'll be in the minority on this. It's just not how I think football clubs should be owned and run. They're not 'normal' businesses, the emotion tied up with a club precludes it from those 'rules'. In America a club is viewed as a franchise, to be bought, sold and moved for a greater return. That's not how European football is. I hate what's happening to football in England. Clubs are losing what made them great, they're becoming sanitised, tourist versions of their old selves. The same clubs in name only. 

[Rousseau 11,284]

I think the multi-club model is just a formal arrangement for what already happens: we're already a feeder club to English sides. 

 

There are examples of good and bad American ownership/investment, throughout Europe.

 

We have to judge it on its own merit. 

[Frankie 8,789]

A very fair and honest post, John.

 

I tend to have a similar view but (and it's a very big but) we're going nowhere under the status quo and, in fact, we're going backwards at a rate of knots.

 

As such if there's credible new interest in ownership - especially in a staged method that they used with Leeds to allow both parties to see the wood for the trees - then that's of interest to me. Our club needs a 1980s style revolution and, as much as success isn't guaranteed with any change, I'm keen to hear more about this and more info should be forthcoming.

 

FWIW, I suspect this leak is more to do with applying some pressure to any hesitant existing shareholders as opposed to anything else. In terms of the ownership model, I also suspect that European league football changes are inevitable so this will make us well placed to take advantage of that.

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,914]

28 minutes ago, Frankie said:

I also suspect that European league football changes are inevitable so this will make us well placed to take advantage of that.

There are so many US based consortiums buying up European football clubs that they will now have some real voices at the table, and some voting power when it comes to deciding matters.

 

My personal fear is that it is a matter of time before the football we all know and love is gone and some kind of Americanised garbage, like the changes to the CL, Europa and Conference Leagues have all turned into an NBA style format. I know some people like it, but its not for me. And it wont be the last step. It will morph into asuper league over time. They are just boiling the frog slowly.

 

43 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I think the multi-club model is just a formal arrangement for what already happens: we're already a feeder club to English sides.

This is true, my concern is that we get the Leeds young foreign signings that couldn't get work permits for England and end up developing their talent pipeline with no say. We seem to have more relaxed foreign player signing criteria than the English clubs since Brexit.

 

As it stands we get some autonomy over signing, using a selling our players.

[alexscottislegend 2,552]

13 hours ago, Rousseau said:

My default position is, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. 

 

In the meantime... 

 

Move Tav to linebacker; he will also be our place kicker expert. As for quarter back  - could we get Charlie Adam back?