If You're Going to San Francisco

[alexscottislegend 2,554]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

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. 

I don't think you are in the minority. Huge numbers of fans in England hate the moneyed clubs, hence the glee with which the demise of Man city is being viewed. I would want to see all clubs being fan-owned with the fans having control not just representation.

 

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

[ranger_syntax 4,616]

Any European league changes will be designed to prevent the biggest clubs from being challenged.

 

We will never be in a position to take advantage of such changes.

[Frankie 8,794]

2 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Any European league changes will be designed to prevent the biggest clubs from being challenged.

 

We will never be in a position to take advantage of such changes.

I don't doubt your first point but having the correct ownership and ability to invest means we'll at least be part of the conversation as opposed to being so far outside the tent, we'd be as well being back in the Third Division. 

[ranger_syntax 4,616]

There will be no conversation.

 

We'll be picked to make up the numbers.

[ranger_syntax 4,616]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

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. 

Happened here already, did it not?

[compo 7,612]

I’d say the vast majority of the fans couldn’t give a monkeys who owns the club as long as they can cheer on a winning team they’ll be over the moon.

[CammyF 9,026]

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

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.

Exactly how I feel. We are heading slowly into oblivion under the current regime if nothing changes. 1 title in 14 years is as big an indicator as any as to how far we have fallen (some mitigating circumstances in a few of those seasons).

 

I said when King et al saved us from the clutches of the Spivs that I'd be ever grateful (and I am) but also said they weren't what we needed medium to long-term.

 

Whilst all investments / take overs come with a risk, is it any riskier than letting the status quo continue? 

Edited Thursday at 10:23 by CammyF

[JohnMc 3,023]

2 hours 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. 

 

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

 

We have to judge it on its own merit. 

Currently we at least have the pretence of independence and we're not forced into service for just one club. But the point you make is fair, we're a step on the ladder, not the destination for most players. 
There are examples of good and bad ownership in football, full stop. We've had bad ownership in past that had nothing to do with America. It's not that they're American it's that they own Leeds already and have no emotional connection to us at all. It's just business to them.

[der Berliner 3,991]

Last time I played Fantasy Football was 10 years ago, after that, my interest in what is going on in the EPL essentially vanished. Hence, I am mildly shocked and surprised when I do see the odd highlight from England: teams like Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth, Wolves, and dare I say it Forest and Newcastle are challenging for Champions League places. Teams which I associate with 2nd to 4th tier in my memories. Their supporters probably live the dreams of their fathers, grandfathers and even great great grandfathers. Maybe we should ask them whether they lost any of their traditions and histories, their rivalries etc.?

 

The simple fact is that we are still caught in our goldfish bowl that won't get us much revenue, or the revenue required to play with the sharks out there. It is highly doubtful that any US or other cash will change this in the foreseeable future. What it can change is the current plight of not being able to overcome the Scottish clubs to get us straight entry into the CL riches. IMHO, we are actually not that much worse than them, yet we don't play to our strengths and/or don't have players that give us continuous level of the performance required. Hence, we do need investment. It is quite bizarre that Rangers teams who can't beat Scottish dross on a regular basis can beat multi-million teams on their way to the EL final or the last 16. One might even be willing to give credit to them for taking BL leaders Bayern almost to extra time. Might.

 

The foundations are there, yet we need some change to the status quo, or the attempted skyscraper will just remain a nice detached house ...

 

[Devil's advocaat 1,729]

24 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Currently we at least have the pretence of independence and we're not forced into service for just one club. But the point you make is fair, we're a step on the ladder, not the destination for most players. 
There are examples of good and bad ownership in football, full stop. We've had bad ownership in past that had nothing to do with America. It's not that they're American it's that they own Leeds already and have no emotional connection to us at all. It's just business to them.

Indeed, Citeh had some cads before they landed with the billions, but even at that, I hate what the likes of they and Chelsea et al have become. However, it's where football is going. Sadly.