Jump to content

Did rea Inadvertantly Start the New Civil Unrest?

Corky True Legend

By Corky True Legend
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

 Share

Recommended Posts

Corky True Legend

Corky True Legend 2,682

Posted
Posted

At the AGM Mr Wallace asked for 120 days to carry out a review of the "business". Previously it had been understood that, after the AGM whoever was unsuccessful would walk away and that the new board, whoever was on it, would be given some respite to put a plan in order, although there were some who were sceptical.

At first, all appeared to be calm, although some reservations were expressed. For a while, we could get back to arguing about football. Even when lang2911 informed us that he had put a plan to the club for fan representation, there was, to my knowledge, no opposition. I thought that this could possibly be the start of fan unity. some hope!

So far so good. We were now almost half way through Mr Wallace's review period with no significant disruption. Then along comes rea with his idealistic plans for total fan ownership. At first his group seemed to be rolling along quite nicely but then the comments about other groups started to appear along the lines of "If the RST/SoS/RSA are involved, then I'm not interested". The "blazer chasers" realised that, if this scheme was successful, there chances would disappear. So what is their next move? Wheel in Dave King to put the cat amongst the pigeons. We now have a culture of claim and counter-claim between Dave King and the board. At this point I would remind you that Dave King reportedly said he could work with whoever was elected.

Now at this point I will stress that in no way am I suggesting that rea set out to intentionally cause this havoc. He may know all about CIC's having studied them in detail but, in my opinion, he clearly knew nothing about, or at least totally underestimated, the passion of Rangers fans, on both sides of the argument, for this marvellous club. It appears that, in this respect, he did not do his homework. The rifts in our support have re-appeared and now there is no chance of agreement in fan ownership. The sides are too firmly entrenched in their trenches. Never has the saying "If you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail" been more apt.

Now at the end of all this gloom and doom, I do see one bright morning star on the horizon. If we can resurrect lang2911's plan I think, nay hope, that we can succeed in getting our voice heard at the top. I am not suggesting that rea arrived with any machiavellian intententions but I do think his intervention has precipitated the current civil unrest within our support.

Rangers, my team not my project.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fan Ownership

Fan Ownership 101

Posted
Posted

Not sure how many times it has to be said that Rangers First isn't opposed to anything or anyone.

It isn't about what is going on today, it's about building a bright, positive future for Rangers.

Graham Wallace's 120 days are not affected in even the smallest terms by the Rangers First proposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Corky True Legend

Corky True Legend 2,682

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Fan Ownership. Read the post properly before getting your knickers in a twist. At no point did I attribute any blame to Rangers First. I just feel that this could have been avoided if the 120 days had ben allowed to run uninteruptd. If anything, I would blame the "requisitioners". My point is that rea did not understand Rangers.

Rangers my team not my project.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fan Ownership

Fan Ownership 101

Posted
Posted

Fan Ownership. Read the post properly before getting your knickers in a twist. At no point did I attribute any blame to Rangers First. I just feel that this could have been avoided if the 120 days had ben allowed to run uninteruptd. If anything, I would blame the "requisitioners". My point is that rea did not understand Rangers.

Rangers my team not my project.

I still don't see how anything that's been done impacts the 120 day review?

At the first meeting "this is about tomorrow".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Corky True Legend

Corky True Legend 2,682

Posted
  • Author
Posted

D Magic. The line is a reference to the fact that I was told that rea would move on to his next project after he had finished with Rangers. I am merely pointing out that Rangers are more than just a project to me. They have been my team for more than 60 years and I am not "moving on" like him.

Rangers, my team not my project.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Louden Tavern

The Louden Tavern 1,765

Posted
Posted

D Magic. The line is a reference to the fact that I was told that rea would move on to his next project after he had finished with Rangers. I am merely pointing out that Rangers are more than just a project to me. They have been my team for more than 60 years and I am not "moving on" like him

Rangers, my team not my project.

I think you should propose to rea

Link to post
Share on other sites
JCDBigBear

JCDBigBear 10,831

Posted
Posted

At the AGM Mr Wallace asked for 120 days to carry out a review of the "business". Previously it had been understood that, after the AGM whoever was unsuccessful would walk away and that the new board, whoever was on it, would be given some respite to put a plan in order, although there were some who were sceptical.

At first, all appeared to be calm, although some reservations were expressed. For a while, we could get back to arguing about football. Even when lang2911 informed us that he had put a plan to the club for fan representation, there was, to my knowledge, no opposition. I thought that this could possibly be the start of fan unity. some hope!

So far so good. We were now almost half way through Mr Wallace's review period with no significant disruption. Then along comes rea with his idealistic plans for total fan ownership. At first his group seemed to be rolling along quite nicely but then the comments about other groups started to appear along the lines of "If the RST/SoS/RSA are involved, then I'm not interested". The "blazer chasers" realised that, if this scheme was successful, there chances would disappear. So what is their next move? Wheel in Dave King to put the cat amongst the pigeons. We now have a culture of claim and counter-claim between Dave King and the board. At this point I would remind you that Dave King reportedly said he could work with whoever was elected.

Now at this point I will stress that in no way am I suggesting that rea set out to intentionally cause this havoc. He may know all about CIC's having studied them in detail but, in my opinion, he clearly knew nothing about, or at least totally underestimated, the passion of Rangers fans, on both sides of the argument, for this marvellous club. It appears that, in this respect, he did not do his homework. The rifts in our support have re-appeared and now there is no chance of agreement in fan ownership. The sides are too firmly entrenched in their trenches. Never has the saying "If you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail" been more apt.

Now at the end of all this gloom and doom, I do see one bright morning star on the horizon. If we can resurrect lang2911's plan I think, nay hope, that we can succeed in getting our voice heard at the top. I am not suggesting that rea arrived with any machiavellian intententions but I do think his intervention has precipitated the current civil unrest within our support.

Rangers, my team not my project.

Ian G is involved with Rangers First is he not? I'm not sure that you would have been a supporter of his idea as I believe it involved multiple payments or such like although I am not 100% certain about the exact proposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JCDBigBear

JCDBigBear 10,831

Posted
Posted

My gripe is that we have too many fans groups led without consultation by too few people whose positions are almost guaranteed for life and we have a number of different proposals being pursued by various groups and individuals.

Is there no chance of everybody getting together to discuss one unified way forward?

Is that too much to ask?

Are people's egos too big to allow them to cede the floor to give every Rangers fan a say?

I'm sick to death of our so-called "fans representatives" and the so-called "fans saviours" who do nothing constructive to find a proposal which would have the backing of 99% of the fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JCDBigBear

JCDBigBear 10,831

Posted
Posted

JCDBigBear. My understanding is that the proposal was for a MAXIMUM shareholding of 26% giving us, the fans, a voice. That I have no gripes with as I have said.

Rangers, my team not my project.

No we are at cross purposes here. Ian G's idea was not the Rangers First proposal. I was led to believe it was a fans membership scheme.

I have no problem with fans buying into Rangers First if that is their wish. Personally, I would just buy shares on my own as I have done on 4 previous occasions. I think that part of our problem is that our own supporters don't hold sufficient shares. Instead of moaning about other rich investors buying we should be doing that ourselves. If all the fans who bought at the IPO did so again for the same amount then we would have approx one third of the Club's shares between us all. That is really significant when it comes to decision-making.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...