Setting the Standard: A New Model for The Rangers of The Future

[Frankie 8,552]

As part of our 'Setting the Standard' series of articles, Big_Spliff offers a model for how the club could be bought, then run - considering the problems with the status quo.

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=734&Itemid=1

 

For those that prefer to read on the main forum, I'll post it in 2 parts below..

 

[Frankie 8,552]

Part One

 

Why would anyone invest in Rangers? Financial crisis. Large, growing debt. Shortage of cash. SPL. Small TV deal. Small country. Take your pick, add another 10, double it, add your age, multiply by your shoe size and stick a cherry on top if you like.

 

Well, I would invest in Rangers. I already have, and so have people I know. Businesses already do and sponsors already do. I would invest more. So would people I know. So would businesses and so would sponsors – Carling will not be the last sponsor of Rangers. But nobody’s queuing up at the moment are they?

 

Our absolute and fundamental problem is that the club (the business, if you like) needs a fresh start. It needs a new energy, a new vision, a new strategy, a new plan. And to put these things in place, it needs a new leader with a new leadership team. THEN, we can start going somewhere.

 

This discussion promotes the concept of fan ownership. At its heart is the belief that Rangers is too important to be allowed to be controlled by just one man. The next man might be great, he might be a disaster. Survey the landscape of British football boardrooms of 2009, consider the trends and ask yourself if you are entirely comfortable. 90% of fans would, I bet, say no.

 

This discussion also recognises that the Ã?£70m or so which might be needed to buy Rangers and invest for the future is a bridge too far for ordinary fans on their own. Is fan ownership a realistic possibility? Consider this; when Fergus McCann left Celtic, 20,000 supporters took part in their share issue, with many placing very large sums. Since then, Celtic has raised Ã?£37m from two further issues in 2001 and 2005. Rangers could raise Ã?£37m if the supporters liked what they heard, saw the benefits and bought the idea psychologically. Leaders of people can achieve great and implausible things - history is littered with them. Only last week an incredible orator took the keys to the Oval Office – impossible is nothing, as they say. A credible, visionary leader who steps forward with a credible strategic plan which the supporters buy into will find an awful lot of people and an awful lot of money lining up beside him - galvanising the supporters will be easy.

 

As I’ve said, it’s hard to see the support buying Rangers outright in the short-term. And it’s hard to see wealthy investors doing the same. That’s why a hybrid model may have the best chance of succeeding. It’s not often that Rangers FC changes hands, so why wait around for another 20 years and see what happens?

 

This article primarily discusses those who will invest significant amounts; what’s in it for them, when they get back, what the pre-conditions might be, and how they fit into the club’s ongoing structure etc.

 

Firstly, a few wealthy people (let’s say half a dozen with Ã?£5m each, or a similar amount of people who together can pool Ã?£25-30m) need to be inclined to invest in Rangers. They may have Rangers at heart, they may want indirect benefits (such as status, exposure etc), or they may want a financial return. Whatever their motivation, two things need to be possible in return for significant investment; the belief that the club can be run profitably (or without losses) and; input into the running of the club either directly or indirectly by appointing experts in key positions. If I have a few million Ã?£’s, I am emotionally inclined to invest in Rangers and these two conditions are in place then I am more than half-way there.

 

To create these conditions, two primary things need to happen; the current corporate management team need to be replaced, top to bottom. Blood on the carpet. Replacing an old regime is not tricky, surprising or particularly inventive. It’s just one of those things. Don’t lose any sleep over it, it happens all the time. Secondly, a sound business model needs to be created which demonstrates that the club can be run as a self-sustainable entity. Tough decisions need to be made, but ones which are for the greater good.

 

Restructuring the club and implementing a new business model is not difficult either – there is only one significant obstacle; the potential for the club to ‘under-perform’ on the pitch for a period of time in relation to expectations of the supporters which will undoubtedly test the nerves as we see the plans through. Amazingly difficult, and a concept which would only fly and be allowed to exist in a not-too-hostile climate if accompanied by a new vision and strategy which is fundamentally and psychologically supported by the fans. Our new vision must be based on investing in youth development and scouting on an enormous scale, in exchange for spending no more than notional amounts on the first team for a period of 3-4 years. I’m talking about a Ã?£15-20m investment – no half measures. I believe a new, credible and visionary leader could sell this to the supporters.

 

The club will be run on the basis that it maximises its resources, and really concentrates on youth development. Its scouting network is taken seriously because unlike most other large clubs, there is a fundamental obligation/necessity to rely on it. It’s not optional and not something we bail out of. It becomes the heart of the culture of the club. Rangers becomes known as the place to be for excellent youngsters, and we play them in the team. Presented properly in the right context, I honestly believe fans would support that, under a credible new leadership.

 

It might take 3-5 years to significantly produce at Ibrox for the first time and in the meantime we soldier on with the standard of player we have now. We try to improve the team by selling the countless players who are simply not going to be good enough for long enough, and replacing them with better buys. Who can honestly say that’s not possible when you consider some of our current fringe players? How bad will it get? Well, it’ll be pretty much the same as things are now – not much better, not much worse. The question to ask yourself is; would you swallow that?

 

Returning to our new investors and the thorny questions – why would they bother and what would they get in return? Let’s say the pre-conditions we’ve discussed are in place; the ability to get the best people to run the club successfully, and a plan to run without losses. At a high-level, here’s the mechanics;

 

A group of high net-worth people or organisations agree to create a pool for investment, let’s say Ã?£30m. 6 x Ã?£5m. Not 1 x Ã?£70m, but 6 x Ã?£5m. Quite different. Fans will find the rest if they buy into the vision. Here’s how it might work;

 

The 6 investors form an executive board of directors, they own maybe 5-10% of Rangers each. None dominates the other financially and none can ever have control of the club – even as a group, they cannot constitutionally control the club. All other smaller investors also own shares through their new (or existing) investment. The executive board will be in-situ for a period of 3-5 years, whereupon they must stand for re-election by all other shareholders who have invested more than, say, Ã?£1000 on a one-member one-vote basis. In other words, the executive board cannot band together and re-elect itself. The rationale for a cut-off value is to incentivise supporters to invest to this level and to diminish the possibility of mischievous investing & voting. From the executive board, a senior executive is elected who performs the role of Chairman. The Chairman is responsible (with the board’s backing) for appointing and managing a team of Executive managers in the various disciplines, football, sales & marketing, operations, finance etc etc – a normal company hierarchy. A ‘grass-roots’ supporter with the right credentials may also be elected to the executive management team. The mechanics relating to the corporate governance structure and the exit of shareholders and so on are complicated and will spark much debate. That’s all part of the process – every problem can be solved.

 

CONTINUES

[Frankie 8,552]

Part Two

 

Corporate investment is also a fruitful avenue. Many companies will invest in a visionary plan. Turning Ibrox into a world-class business and community hub will unlock large sources of untapped revenue. We’d need to do the place up, make changes, but we wouldn’t need to spend absolutely ridiculous amounts. The construction market is not exactly full to capacity at the moment.

 

In terms of business facilities, Ibrox is already full of offices, restaurants, food outlets and great things to see. It’s 15 minutes from the airport, 10 minutes from the city centre and 5 minutes from the motorway. Loch Lomond is 40 minutes away for outdoor activities which could be bolted-on to packages. In fact, once out of the city there are facilities like that all around the place which we could partner with. Fit the place out with excellent communications such as wi-fi and conferencing facilities and there is ready–made space for businesses to make far more use of it that they do now.

 

How many hotel meeting rooms are booked in Glasgow in a year? People have tea/coffee, lunch etc, it all adds up. How many people in business have gone to meetings in decent places? – e.g. Silverstone, Old Trafford, The Old Course and 1000 others – going to a meeting in a place of interest is excellent and very, very appealing if it’s good once you get there. Collectively, even in hard times, business still spends a fortune hiring facilities and entertaining. I’d argue that here are very many businesses who would use Ibrox (and similarly Murray Park) on a casual basis – and there are many who would invest in the club on the basis that they had privileged & concessionary access to these types of things. A hotel, leisure, shopping complex and museum would add significantly to the attraction and profitability of the destination, with varying degrees of outlay. Some or all of these may or may not be strategic imperatives, we shall see.

 

Finally, we return to the average supporter. Remember we were 200,000 strong in Manchester and the pubs back home were still packed-out and the streets empty by all accounts. The whole stadium experience is professionally reviewed which a view to maximising revenue - across the week but especially on match-day. How many people buy burgers and pints outside the ground? Why do they? Would they buy from the club if the product was good, easily accessible, priced correctly, served by smiling blue-noses? (even rotating volunteers – I’d have a go!) Bars/food outlets in the concourses, knocked through to the paved areas outside? Proper smoking areas arranged outside. Merchandise on sale. Nice working TV's. Former players mingle. Sense of community. Many fans would arrive earlier, enjoy the atmosphere and the facilities, stay later and spend more.

 

Talking of merchandising, how many people have tried to buy Rangers gear and can’t? It’s ridiculous. Distribution and merchandising deals need to be done which maximise availability and revenue. A hybrid of the Rangers/Celtic model if you like. We have the best deal on paper - they have the best distribution. You can get a Celtic, Man U or Chelsea top in every sports shop in the UK, why not Rangers?

 

 

As the club is now owned by the fans, from this day on it will function solely for you and for the wider community. Our thousands of new investment partners and their friends and families will be welcomed into the stadium seven days a week and you’ll be treated like you own the place. Our millions of fans will be welcome to visit the stadium and spend time there whenever they want. And we extend a warm invitation to the community, visitors and tourists – “come and see our place, enjoy it, spend some money, tell your friends and hopefully come back again. With them!”

 

The club is now owned by the fans and it now exists for the fans.

 

Sir David Murray and his team couldn’t sell this to the supporters or raise the fans' cash - there is too much baggage and a lack of invention in that boardroom. We don’t even need a Ã?£70m sugar daddy or a new Sir David Murray. It only needs a few reasonably wealthy people to get together and step forward; given our current situation and the outlook for the next few years, they’ll find that the support they have will be overwhelming. Maybe the fans could even step up first and tempt the investors out of the shadows? (Just a thought)

 

Either way round, this can be done. Our club doesn’t change hands very often. It’s time for the reasonably wealthy few to understand that they can make a difference and that we, the fans are ready for a new Rangers. If the fans aren’t sure they’re ready yet, I’d bet that the right leader with the right plan could persuade us.

 

The time is now.

 

[Frankie 8,552]

Right, a few thoughts on the above:

 

Obviously the most difficult question to answer is the very first sentence of the article. Thankfully you go onto address that and make a case for people to get involved.

 

Next question is almost as difficult. Who will be the people to invest? Will our Rangers supporters of a sufficiently high net worth have, a) the money; and b) the time/expertise to dedicate to running the club in tandem with their own business interests?

 

Like you I think people would be interested given the right focal figure. As such, once again the need for such a person (a Fergus McCann or even a 1988 David Murray) would be such a person. Ambitious, successful, imaginative, committed and able to see that money could be made. We need to find that person. SDM needs to find that person. A Rangers fan (or other credible figure) to lead the charge.

 

And it won't happen overnight. The chairman has been looking for this person for over 3 years FFS. Why is that? Is that his fault? Does his reputation precede him? More questions then.

 

This is exactly why the bulk of the article is relevant. Investment into Rangers may not be workable right now as we enter what will be a 2 year recession. But it can be and current problems can be overcome so should not be used as a timid excuse. Thus, we can use these 2 years to ensure any business model is bombproof. The ideas above provide a sound basis and one the club (and the fans) should be buying into in a general sense.

 

OK, not via our hard-earned right now but in terms of brainpower, dialogue and hard work. That means working together with each other - the club, the fans, the high net worth, the ordinary Copland Road Joe, the ex-players and those who just want to make money.

 

Statements arguing the toss from either side won't achieve that. Articles like the above will. As such, get involved, give your thoughts. Criticise, praise, offer to help.

 

Such a process takes leadership. It takes humilty. And it will take our patience.

 

I challenge Sir David Murray and the fans to do all the above for the betterment of our club. The time is now indeed.

[Big Spliff 0]

The "who" question is obviously tricky. As soon as you start to pitch in names then personal preconceptions surface and we could end up in a debate over whether we'd be happy for Gordon Ramsay to have a 5% stake in Rangers when he says "fuck" 27 times every hour and apparently can't keep his cock in his pants.

 

I firmly believe that we do not need to wait the lifetimes required for the RST to build enough Gersave members and that - just as Celtic fans did - Rangers fans across the world will dig deep if asked when a new dawn emerges.

 

I would love to see a Richard Gough or a Gordon Smith figure step forward with support from a handful of financiers and a sound, plausible, visionary strategic plan. If that were to happen I really do believe the fans would do the rest. It's really not as implausible as it might first appear.

[Bluedell 5,614]

People who are willing to invest �£5m or more would generally be successful businessmen, and have a heathy ego in respect of their own bsiness skills. Would they be willing to only have a sixth of the vote when they are used to getting their own way 100% of the time?

 

Likewise can you see the other 5 willing to allow one to become Chairman (a highly prestigous and visible position) when they have to take more of a back seat?

 

It's this area that I see the major downfall to the plan and would be interested in your thoughts as to how this would be overcome, Spliff.

 

 

Overall, a very well put together and thought-provoking article.

[Frankie 8,552]

The "who" question is obviously tricky. As soon as you start to pitch in names then personal preconceptions surface and we could end up in a debate over whether we'd be happy for Gordon Ramsay to have a 5% stake in Rangers when he says "fuck" 27 times every hour and apparently can't keep his cock in his pants.

 

I firmly believe that we do not need to wait the lifetimes required for the RST to build enough Gersave members and that - just as Celtic fans did - Rangers fans across the world will dig deep if asked when a new dawn emerges.

 

I would love to see a Richard Gough or a Gordon Smith figure step forward with support from a handful of financiers and a sound, plausible, visionary strategic plan. If that were to happen I really do believe the fans would do the rest. It's really not as implausible as it might first appear.

 

Funnily enough all the names you mention are ones that I'd immediately consider as people who could personalise the issue. Sure, we've got our subjective thoughts on all of them but each have strings to their bow that would make them interesting.

 

I also agree that we cannot wait lifetimes. We need to plan now and that's exactly the reason for this series of articles and debate.

 

It's empirical stuff but it's a first step to showing some sort of leadership. And wholly positive and constructive at that. A contribution the club would not be able to dismiss or ignore and a contribution that other fans could buy into.

 

[Big Spliff 0]

People who are willing to invest �£5m or more would generally be successful businessmen, and have a heathy ego in respect of their own bsiness skills. Would they be willing to only have a sixth of the vote when they are used to getting their own way 100% of the time?

 

Likewise can you see the other 5 willing to allow one to become Chairman (a highly prestigous and visible position) when they have to take more of a back seat?

 

It's this area that I see the major downfall to the plan and would be interested in your thoughts as to how this would be overcome, Spliff.

 

 

Overall, a very well put together and thought-provoking article.

 

TBH Dell, I think you are right, this could be a potential issue. The concept relies on the fact that the top team are like-minded in the first place. Maybe that offsets the concern at least a bit.

 

Some of my unused words did actually discuss this issue - here's what I'd written.

 

......there needs to be personal motivation ââ?¬â?? something which ââ?¬Ë?turns the big investor onââ?¬â?¢. In my experience, people who are prepared to have a public persona which is associated with their wealth, either; relish it, adapt naturally, or tend to have as low a profile as possible. We donââ?¬â?¢t need one particular type or another in my opinion. A Sir Tom Hunter figure would most likely enjoy quiet reflective satisfaction, whereas a Gordon Ramsay figure might never be off the telly "fucking chatting about it". Either is fine, as long as the investor gets something back which suits them. It takes all sorts remember - not everyone has (or likes) the bluster of a Sir David Murray type. You donââ?¬â?¢t see Dermot Desmond on the TV much do you?

 

This might be an idealised fantasy- it would depend on who the characters were I suppose.

[Big Spliff 0]

Funnily enough all the names you mention are ones that I'd immediately consider as people who could personalise the issue.

 

 

Yep - I might like them, you might not. Personalising could be positive or negative - again it depends on the characters involved. If Gordon Smith stepped forward, I'd take a punt that >90% of the support would be warm to him.

[Frankie 8,552]

Yep - I might like them, you might not. Personalising could be positive or negative - again it depends on the characters involved. If Gordon Smith stepped forward, I'd take a punt that >90% of the support would be warm to him.

 

Gordon is exactly the kind of person who could be a figure-head. Obviously his current job may rule him out currently but I'd wager he'd be interested.