Today’s Supports Direct Scotland Meeting at The Louden Tavern - Complete tweets

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

I don't think that's totally correct.

I would suggest, based on nothing more scientific than the posts on this forum over the last year, that the support (RM at least) is probably split 50/50 on whether we want this or not.

My personal opinion is that fan ownership could work BUT needs to be spelt out in great detail exactly what is going to happen if this and if that so as to raise no ambiguity. I also would hope that divisive persons are kept well away from any involvement in the running of such a scheme. In that I would include all current fan groups as each one is seen, by a large group of people, as being divisive. I know some fans groups do good but for the sake of this model we would need a complete new approach. Oh and keep the email server more secure . If it was to be championed by anyone current fans group, any one individual who does not have a majority backing or anyone that is seen currently as being divisive or agenda driven, it will not work.

Eh? It is totally correct there's some people that don't think it's the way forward - that's all I said in reply to the guy above

[NamibianBear 1,851]

Eh? It is totally correct there's some people that don't think it's the way forward - that's all I said in reply to the guy above

But people don't believe it will take the forward mate

Sorry, I had responded to the 2nd quote as it was written as it implies (or appears to imply) it means all people but I stand corrected on my first line of my post. My opinion stays the same though

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

No worries, mix ups happen and your entitled to your view too

[NamibianBear 1,851]

No worries, mix ups happen and your entitled to your view too

[five stars 1,623]

Great idea, where do i sign?

I hope fans will get behind this, give it a chance, if it doesn't work for you then it easy enough to leave.

Could be massive.

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

Great idea, where do i sign?

I hope fans will get behind this, give it a chance, if it doesn't work for you then it easy enough to leave.

Could be massive.

Easy enough for any fan to opt out yeah but the damage that can be done with the rest of them already in place will be irreversible

[simon 1,741]

Didn't really fancy the idea of this before. But I can honestly say I've changed my mind. I think I would still like to read more about it, but I'm genuinely interested in participating.

[iang2911 423]

Didn't really fancy the idea of this before. But I can honestly say I've changed my mind. I think I would still like to read more about it, but I'm genuinely interested in participating.

It will all be written up so everyone can see the details Simon. Hopefully that won't take too long.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

A number of positives for me and a number of negatives.

Positives:

From what i have read and heard, this does give the appearance of being independent from the current status quo models.

I have been encouraged reading some of the views of the pro RST people as there does appear to be a slight wind of change in the last week or so.

It can be a really decent vehicle for club funds and lets face it, we do need it.

I believe there will be no hiding when it comes to funds and how they are appropriated so no bounced cheques, no soft loans and no asking accountants to be creative,

The main protagonist of my dislike for a fans model, clearly doesnt like it which is a huge positive for me.

Negatives:

For me, and people wont like this, the biggest single issue is that football fans are gullible. The heart really does rule the head and I dont apologise for saying that many football fans(im being generic) dont have enough business experience to see things purely from a business perspective. I apologise for dredging this up again, but a prime example of this was Craig Whyte. 99% of our fans feel for it hook, line and sinker. Despite all the evidence being out there and despite a small amount of us trying to get facts and truth out in the open, we were shot down in flames because he said what he wanted them to hear. (Suing the BBC. Sacking Bain in the press. Slagging rivals. Warchests etc)

Fast forward to the last 3 months of last year and we had 4 guys who were absolutely clueless. They had a plan A, built around utter nonsense and they didnt want to discuss their plan B "If we even have one, that is" They had a guy who couldnt read a simple set of accounts backed up on that very point by another head nodding guy who was in charge during the period the accounts related to. They lied to fans faces and I think their business history was shown to be extremely weak. YET, if the AGM vote was purely down to fans, then i think they would have got in. And that really would have been frightening.

From the above 2 examples, how can i assume anything but the fact that if our fans had a voice in things, then we could and probably would still end up with "their board" being made up with people who say the right things, but either dont have relevant experience or are simply there for their own self.

Further to that, Im not as convinced that if things get bad(see £100m debt Hamburg is in) that fans could lead us out of trouble or lead to fresh investment. For all his troubles, Murray went and got £40m from Lewis, £20m from King and although he led us there, he had to "remortgage" his own business to the tune of £50m to pull us out. Charles Green, irrespective of what people think of him, helped raise £30m from big investors. I dont believe for a single second that our fans model could achieve this.

There is probably more that i will add to, but i would sum up by saying i am less worried about this model gaining momentum than what i have ever been about the RST gaining momentum. That would genuinely frighten me, whereas I see this new thing more of being a "membership" where money raised annually could be ring-fenced and used for a single purpose such as paying wages of a youth/scouting set up etc.

For that reason, im going to keep an open mind for now and will be signing up for more information. I actually believe with the right people chosen to represent the fans, then this scheme could work, but it really has to be people with EXCELLENT Board experience rather than it being a popularity contest for "who is in favour" at the moment.

[five stars 1,623]

Easy enough for any fan to opt out yeah but the damage that can be done with the rest of them already in place will be irreversible

1st, don't know why you are being so negative about it? Surely it worth getting behind and giving it a chance to succeed?

What do you mean by " the rest of them already in place"??

[TheLawMan 6,240]

1st, don't know why you are being so negative about it? Surely it worth getting behind and giving it a chance to succeed?

What do you mean by " the rest of them already in place"??

The very last thing we need is everyone blindly getting behind this and not asking questions.

[iang2911 423]

The very last thing we need is everyone blindly getting behind this and not asking questions.

Whole heartedly agree lawman. 1st agreement yesterday is that the whole process needs to be as transparent as possible.

I am away from my PC just now but will try to get on later to answer your and 1st_jan's posts

[five stars 1,623]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that nobody asks any questions? Or follows along blindly.

What would be good is open minds, imagination and a bit of optimism.

[NamibianBear 1,851]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that nobody asks any questions? Or follows along blindly.

What would be good is open minds, imagination and a bit of optimism.

What would be good is if we could, each and every one of us, look at this with a view to coming up with a decent way forward whether its for or against in a constructive manner. Ideas such as this might well have merit and I personally believe it will work provided, and that should be in bold and underlined I guess, that certain individuals (of a jaffa cake nature in particular), are kept well away from any such idea.

I think a lot of the negative views here are because of the divisive nature of some individuals (PM, MD et al) as well as some fans groups and the way they have portrayed themselves (RST and all its sisters).

Provided that those type of individuals/groups are kept well away from any new model (in any senior "running" role) then it will work. I don't say that members of RST should not be joining this, I just say that they should have (the board members at least) no chance of ever running this and especially those that are seen as running their own agendas should never be allowed to run this.

Fans Ownership should be for the fans to run the club, or at least, ensure the correct running of the club. Not for some blazer chasing individual or group to come and try take it over.

If that happens, yes, this will work and work successfully. If MD/PM/RST try to run this, it's already failed and my email address has been hacked

[trublusince1982 768]

But people don't believe it will take the forward mate

having more money will not take us forward?

The club having more money to spend should never be seen as a negative.

As far as having shares and fan ownership goes would you not rather have access to the truth than hearing every rumour through a slanted media or being pushed as an agenda?

Would you not like no other group being able to ever say they represent the rangers support ever again?

as far as having fans as majority shareholder it's not like we will be voting on the day to day issues, it will be far more general than that. More like voting on whether we want some of the cash raised going to scouting, rather than who should we employ and what should our focus be. I think agreement will be far easier than expected on the vast majority of issues.

The only issue i see as a real problem is who should chair, but would guess this will be an annual or bi annual vote and is democractic so should hold no fear for any of us.

Pretty sure as a support we can come up with by-laws that can put even the biggest handringers too ease.

such as.

no chairman or representitive(whatever title they would hold) can have been head of any other past or present rangers organisation or be making money from a rangers connection be it website, shop..blah blah blah.

Nobody can be up for election on more than two occasions with tenure no longer than say 24months.

no chair or board member can have monetary concerns associated with the club or its name.

Nobody can be voted onto the board without over 50% of the vote

these are just random thoughts that could be expanded on by those brainier than myself.

don't get me wrong we all as a support need to help form any body which would represent a push for board membership at the club and help ensure that no single person could gain, but it is certainly a realistic and achievable aim if we put in a concerted effort especially from those who have issues and worries, the more people who are involved who are ardently against anyone gaining personally the better.

It's time to decide what you would prefer to do for the club, complain and change nothing or be part of a better solution.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

For all the pie in the sky hopes of the pro fan ownership faction, one matter seems to be ignored. They are depending on OMOV to be democratic. That is what we have for local authority/parliamentary elections and look what we have ended up with. How do you guarantee a high percentage vote. If this does go ahead, I honestly feel the usual suspects will be in charge within 10 years once the initial novelty has worn off for the average fan. Only the zealots on both sides will be bothered to vote.

[five stars 1,623]

Its seem that in the back of peoples minds, that if this were to happen, then somehow PM would end up in charge.

The maximum involvement PM will have is one vote, same as everybody else, if he signs up.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Its seem that in the back of peoples minds, that if this were to happen, then somehow PM would end up in charge.

The maximum involvement PM will have is one vote, same as everybody else, if he signs up.

Do you think Sons of Struth followers and all the guys bumping their gums pre AGM would vote for Murray though ?

Or to put it another way, if all the institutional investors were banned from voting at the AGM in December and it was only the 12% fans, would Murray Co have got voted in ?

[AMcK 92]

Fan ownership isn't a perfect solution, but nothing is. Look at our recent history with Murray, Whyte & Green. Do we want to be sitting a few years down the line still complaining about owners or directors damaging our club? If not then I'd like to think we are capable of doing something about it.

We're probably not looking at fans owning >50% so it won't be total control but there is a possibility of securing a significant shareholding to protect our interests and those of the club. I can't see that as a bad thing.

Plenty of details obviously still have to be worked out but I think the emails and objectives are very well intentioned. At the end of the day if whatever is proposed isn't viable then it won't go ahead and we'll be no worse off for looking at our options.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

I'm not convinced at all by fan ownership - in fact I think it's a recipe for disaster but if this Jambo woman can do this why can't King?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2559227/Queen-Hearts-2-5m-offered-rescue-stricken-Edinburgh-club-generous-businesswoman.html

[STEPPS BOY 73,814]

I'm not convinced at all by fan ownership - in fact I think it's a recipe for disaster but if this Jambo woman can do this why can't King?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2559227/Queen-Hearts-2-5m-offered-rescue-stricken-Edinburgh-club-generous-businesswoman.html

A high net worth individual stepping up when their club needs them.

It'll never catch on.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

AMcK. I would agree with you that we should have representation at board level. However SDS are pushing fan ownership which I feel would be an unmitigated disaster. To me, it is like voting "yes". Once done, there is no going back. Also, as regards majority shareholders, you are talking about 30 years out of 140. Lawrence was good for Rangers as an owner,

[iang2911 423]

AMcK. I would agree with you that we should have representation at board level. However SDS are pushing fan ownership which I feel would be an unmitigated disaster. To me, it is like voting "yes". Once done, there is no going back. Also, as regards majority shareholders, you are talking about 30 years out of 140. Lawrence was good for Rangers as an owner,

It will be the working party made up of Rangers fans that will decide what the aims of the CIC are. SDS are only facilitating the process.

[The Louden Tavern 1,765]

AMcK. I would agree with you that we should have representation at board level. However SDS are pushing fan ownership which I feel would be an unmitigated disaster. To me, it is like voting "yes". Once done, there is no going back. Also, as regards majority shareholders, you are talking about 30 years out of 140. Lawrence was good for Rangers as an owner,

What are your reasons for saying that,regarding Lawrence

[The Louden Tavern 1,765]

Do you think Sons of Struth followers and all the guys bumping their gums pre AGM would vote for Murray though ?

Or to put it another way, if all the institutional investors were banned from voting at the AGM in December and it was only the 12% fans, would Murray Co have got voted in ?

Thats why we should all look at the details when released and if it is to your liking join, if not don't join.One vote per person