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

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

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.

Wow that's a lot for me someone's who's just sat down in Ayr pub before game

For a start tho this isn't about the club having more money to spend - the money is about gaining control

Then what? Trust rebel dicks and handwringing bastards to try and raise working capital?

Dress it up in long winded nonsense all you like - recent events in lead up to AGM from certain people has proved to me this will be the beginning of the end for us

Prove me wrong

[Rfc#1. 1,877]

Meh...it'll never work imo. Time will tell I guess but I'd be surprised if this gains any traction.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

Inanswer to The Louden, under Lawrence we had a successful team, a manager we could look up to and a united support. What else could you ask for? Oh yes fan ownership. In the words of a Dragon - I'm out.

[iang2911 423]

Some seem to think when the see "Fan Ownership" that it means the fans owning 100% of the company and running the business on a day to day basis. This is not what is being proposed and in fact Richard at SDS put it another way, Community Ownership with accountability to the Fans. The actual proposals for how it will look and the long term benefits it can bring to the club are still to be ironed out, I have outlined one possible way that it could work benefiting everyone, however that is only one way it could work.

There is a working party being put together that will try to discuss the various options and a strategy on how to move forward which will be meeting up this week.

A couple of the key points from yesterday are:

1) A solicitor will be appointed to the CIC from the start to oversee the governance and creation of the business.

2) It will be Rangers fans who have relevant knowledge and experience that have put themselves forward that will do the initial work in creating the scheme.

3) Full transparency from the start has been agreed as a founding principal

4) Once the scheme is set up and membership is gained then an open vote OMOV will be done to select an executive committee

5) Any position at the club created to represent the fans will be filled by an experienced professional

6) A charter will be created specific to this scheme, SDS has a draft that will be provided so we can work from it.

These are just some of the points mentioned yesterday, there will be more once the working party has met. It was also suggested by SDS, as has happened elsewhere, that if anyone from any existing organisation put themselves forward then they have to resign from that organisation, I think this is a good thing.

Finally MD is not involved, if it is set up correctly then ongoing governance can be assured. If people with concerns over who will be involved going forward raise them with the working party members something can be done from the start. I have notes of the concerns on this thread and others, remember I have been collating all this for over 9 months now.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

lang2911. Whilst I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this, I was under the impression that you were proposing fan representaton, not fan ownership. You blearly have the best interests of Rangers at heart but you are now beginning to sound like a new version of Carson's Cat with your blind following of SDS.

[iang2911 423]

lang2911. Whilst I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this, I was under the impression that you were proposing fan representaton, not fan ownership. You blearly have the best interests of Rangers at heart but you are now beginning to sound like a new version of Carson's Cat with your blind following of SDS.

Wait until you see the proposal mate, closers to representation than not.

[topgoalie 637]

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.

Good sensible post this...well said sir.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Wait until you see the proposal mate, closers to representation than not.

Who do you envisage investing if the fans are in control?

[The Beast 9,207]

Thanks for posting the detailed minutes but I'm still strongly against the idea it will be the beginning of the end for our club as things stand IMO and regrettably

Agree totally. This would be the worst thing possible.

[The Louden Tavern 1,765]

Inanswer to The Louden, under Lawrence we had a successful team, a manager we could look up to and a united support. What else could you ask for? Oh yes fan ownership. In the words of a Dragon - I'm out.

I think I am right in saying that under John Lawrence's Chairmanship we won less trophies than any other time our history - can someone correct me if I am wrong.

I do know when I was growing up celtic won 9-in-a-row (whilst we had bigger crowds) and lost arguably the greatest Scottish Player of all time for £10 per week. He also picked the team for the 67 ECWC Final playing a reserve centre half at centre forward and got rid of Jim Forrest over one poor performance.

But if you remember him more kindly than I do then fair enough

[The Louden Tavern 1,765]

Agree totally. This would be the worst thing possible.

I totally disagree with the flat out rejection of any fan involvement with the club - I don't believe 'fan ownership' as has been portrayed on here by some is the reality of how it would work. Richard went into detail at the meeting yesterday about how a fans representative on the board is not necessarily a good thing and how it would not be something that the CIC would be looking to implement.

The main goal is transparency and consultancy - that the club has the interest of club itself (and therefore the fans) at its core.

I would also like to reiterate that this is not anti-board. This is pro-Rangers and Rangers Supporters. Its about us having a voice and someone listening to us.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

In 13 years, 6 League championships, 5 Scottish Cups, 4 League Cups and 2 European Finals is not a bad record for any manager at a time when other teams were not just there to make up the numbers.

[The Beast 9,207]

I totally disagree with the flat out rejection of any fan involvement with the club - I don't believe 'fan ownership' as has been portrayed on here by some is the reality of how it would work. Richard went into detail at the meeting yesterday about how a fans representative on the board is not necessarily a good thing and how it would not be something that the CIC would be looking to implement.

The main goal is transparency and consultancy - that the club has the interest of club itself (and therefore the fans) at its core.

I would also like to reiterate that this is not anti-board. This is pro-Rangers and Rangers Supporters. Its about us having a voice and someone listening to us.

The fact that vermin such as the SOS managed to mobilise a vocal minority to support their thuggish agenda and the large amount of "Daily Record readers" among the larger fan base means that the rank and file simply cannot be trusted.

[tannerall 25,935]

The main questions for me would probably concern defining who "the community" are and how they would fund what I believe would be a very large business concern from scratch. Also how current owners and potential other investors would be affected by "the community".

Dont think Barcelona and Bayern are good comparisons as the first is highly politicised at local and national level, and the second is hugely affected by commercial and to a lesser degree local politics.

We certainly now seem have very little influence in local or national politics, if anything they appear to be non-supportive.

And at present may struggle to attract business interests as well, so would initially be totally dependant on "community" funding ?

A noble idea but not feasible IMO.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

We really need to adjust our mentality and outlook with regard to our club - are any of us really happy with what has happened under our current model of ownership ?

Has it really served us well ?

Whether the SDS model is the way forward I honestly have no idea - in fact perhaps the whole & various models of fan ownership needs to be explained - the entailment of what it means for our club and our support. They had advantages but also disadvantages, some of which have been espoused in this thread.

But of course so does every model of ownership - for a club whose business side slid into admin & then liquidation fairly recently - the failings of the current model dont really need much further confirmation. Whyte may well have been something of a one off - but are we as fans able to exercise any greater level of vigilance with the current board - or previous boards under SDM ?

Did we really have any say in the running and direction of our club ?

If the answers to that question is "no" then it is incumbent upon every single one of us to strive,lobby,pressurise and explore all avenues which will allow us to exercise greater vigilance and have a greater say in the running of our club.

The model of ownership is only the component part - the essential part is that the heart & soul of this club can ensure it is being run with correct governance and in a direction we are happy with - and not on the outside being paid merely lip service.

[The Louden Tavern 1,765]

In 13 years, 6 League championships, 5 Scottish Cups, 4 League Cups and 2 European Finals is not a bad record for any manager at a time when other teams were not just there to make up the numbers.

John Lawrence took over the Chairmanship in 1963 - Of which 1963/64 was a treble team so I don't think it is fair to give him the credit for that. We then didn't win the league for the rest of the time he was chairman (which post he left in 1973). We won the Scottish Cup in 1966 and 1973 (which he think he had already retired by then), the league cup in 1970 and of course the CWC in 1972. I don't think you can judge that as success at a club like Rangers.

Is that record not James Scotland Symon who was our manager for 13 years?