Fag packet maths. King shares.

700 People have already paid into it. There is a scheme, or at least the bare bones of one. We agree on absolutely everything to do with their 'scheme'. Why is that so hard just to say? Man not ball, that is why.

Yet again, I have no suggestion at all. I called a brief idea 'fag packet maths' and stated clearly at the end that I made it up as I went along. Further, I have twice explained to you that it is not a suggestion at all, it is a simple vehicle for expanding debate and getting people talking about the subject in terms of what they want and what they envisage. How about you read what is actually written for a change and accept what is said instead of trying to imprint your own perceptions onto it? How about not pontificating to others what they can and cannot do while contributing the sum total of absolutely zero yourself?


I have indulged you long enough to be honest. You have looked for a fight over multiple threads and you are simply not going to get it from me Pies. I have bent over backwards to be polite to you, to compliment you, to emphasize the points we clearly agree on (all of them, even though you refuse to accept that) I have tried to encourage you to get involved, to share your experience and knowledge and still, the best you can manage, is the above tripe.

There isn't a scheme. There's "here's what we want to do" and "give us your money". What's lacking is the important bit:

Here's how we intend to achieve it.
 
Yes, the merit is to safeguard the club. That is not the start and end of a £13 million investment and FAR more thinking needs to go into it than that.

You are saying that unless C1872 is a one off buyin at the start, that leaves no way for people to leave, it will fail.

I am saying that if C1872 can be attractive to people and make them stay, it can be FAR more than a check on the board of Rangers.

I understand the situation a good deal better than you appear to do mate.

Maybe you do. I'm not convinced it's shown by your posts, though.

You're opening a shareholding to whomever is interested, irrespective of merit and intention. You're allowing mechanisms to subsequently sell and repeatedly refer to returns and people leaving.

Again, the point is to create a secure block shareholding for the lifetime of the Club.
 
There isn't a scheme. There's "here's what we want to do" and "give us your money". What's lacking is the important bit:

Here's how we intend to achieve it.
My god. You are going to that level of semantics to avoid saying 'yeah, you are right, we agree'


Fine. You win. There is no scheme.


See? We agree again.
 
Maybe you do. I'm not convinced it's shown by your posts, though.

You're opening a shareholding to whomever is interested, irrespective of merit and intention. You're allowing mechanisms to subsequently sell and repeatedly refer to returns and people leaving.

Again, the point is to create a secure block shareholding for the lifetime of the Club.
Explain to me how failing to attract enough people to buy David King's shares achieves that please.
 
Club 1872 wasn't set up to fill Dave's pockets. They are supposed to be working towards the greater good of The Rangers. Buying DK shares is of no benefit to The Rangers. I cannot see any positives whatsoever with regard to the future well-being of The Rangers should C1872 purchase these shares. I think it would most likely lead to increased infighting and power struggles within C1872 and eventually lead to it's downfall.
 
Explain to me how failing to attract enough people to buy David King's shares achieves that please.

It's odd. There's a lot C1872 have to explain and they've barely begun. Yet you've already doomed it to failure.

On the other hand, you're confident your suggestion is more workable. The reason? Just because...
 
It's odd. There's a lot C1872 have to explain and they've barely begun. Yet you've already doomed it to failure.

On the other hand, you're confident your suggestion is more workable. The reason? Just because...
See, I told you that you were singularly failing to grasp what is going on :D


My 'suggestion' is titled 'fag packet maths' and states clearly in the op that it is made up as it goes along; IE, not a suggestion at all, but a debate starter. This has been explained on here since too, but you have clearly not bothered your arse reading it :D


As things stand, C1872 has 7500 members which includes lifetime members from the RST and is pitched with possible monthly outgoings significantly lower than the mooted amounts requested. There is a very real possibility that this will fail to get off the ground, what with needing to pretty much treble the standing number of contributors, and get more cash off them all. It also has no meat on the bones of how it will operate, which is, clearly judging by the general mood of the place since the announcement, not standing it in good stead with the people it has to convince.


It is in no way at all controversial to suggest that this might not work. it is even less controversial to suggest a way of discussing ideas that might help change that. It is even even even less controversial to volunteer your time to try and see if there is a way of making that work.
 
Where am I being dishonest?

Suggesting your idea of an alternative to the c1872 buyout of Kings shares whilst admitting that it might be a suggestion but isn't really a suggestion you're invested in. You seem to suggest individual shareholders proxying votes despite then stating that it's not really an option you fancy pursuing, but that's ok because at least it is an option.

It's clear that you have an issue with c1872 and with what they're suggesting. It's unclear what that issue is, only that you don't like it or you don't like them. You want to get involved but you're suggesting a model that you don't really seem convinced about yourself. But at least it's an option and it's an attempt to do something even if its really an attempt to do anything.

You either back fan ownership and collective representation or you don't. Backing in idea that isn't going to work in the real world is no different than not backing fan ownership. It works when a single fan body owns the shares and can act in a structured and organised way. There are countless examples in world football and a few examples emerging in UK football. If you oppose that real world tested model then come up with a realistic alternative. Kite flying doesn't do that. If you want a crazy collection of annual proxy votes then make the case for it and have the courage of those convictions. Don't muddy things by changing your position more often than a Boris Johnson policy.

"I'd like to do this"
- that's impractical.

"Aye well, when I said I'd like to do this I didn't really mean that I'd like to do this, only that this is an alternative option"
- no it isn't. It's impractical. If it's impractical then it isn't an alternative option.

"We agree on that. We need practical, pragmatic solutions"
- so what are they then?

"You know. All the stuffed agree on"
- I've already said that I completely disagree with your suggestion.

You don't see the fundamental dishonesty in that?
 
Suggesting your idea of an alternative to the c1872 buyout of Kings shares whilst admitting that it might be a suggestion but isn't really a suggestion you're invested in. You seem to suggest individual shareholders proxying votes despite then stating that it's not really an option you fancy pursuing, but that's ok because at least it is an option.

It's clear that you have an issue with c1872 and with what they're suggesting. It's unclear what that issue is, only that you don't like it or you don't like them. You want to get involved but you're suggesting a model that you don't really seem convinced about yourself. But at least it's an option and it's an attempt to do something even if its really an attempt to do anything.

You either back fan ownership and collective representation or you don't. Backing in idea that isn't going to work in the real world is no different than not backing fan ownership. It works when a single fan body owns the shares and can act in a structured and organised way. There are countless examples in world football and a few examples emerging in UK football. If you oppose that real world tested model then come up with a realistic alternative. Kite flying doesn't do that. If you want a crazy collection of annual proxy votes then make the case for it and have the courage of those convictions. Don't muddy things by changing your position more often than a Boris Johnson policy.

"I'd like to do this"
- that's impractical.

"Aye well, when I said I'd like to do this I didn't really mean that I'd like to do this, only that this is an alternative option"
- no it isn't. It's impractical. If it's impractical then it isn't an alternative option.

"We agree on that. We need practical, pragmatic solutions"
- so what are they then?

"You know. All the stuffed agree on"
- I've already said that I completely disagree with your suggestion.

You don't see the fundamental dishonesty in that?
Ahh, so it is your complete and utter inability to see anything in terms that are not strictly literal that is causing the problem?

It is some kind of issue, as a complete layman, to say 'Here is an idea we can talk about' and then, well, talk about it?


I absolutely 100% have an issue with C1872 and the way it is run. I have an issue with this scheme and I have serious questions over whether buying King's shares is the right thing to do at all. I say it clearly, in the open and without fear of people pulling any contradicting statements up from the past.

I also know that while sniping on here is fine, it is kind of hollow and pointless without actually trying to change those issues which is something YOU would do very well to consider, seeing as you have the knowledge, the experience and ability but point blank refuse to contribute either financially or it person, other than to make the exact same complaints I am making (point out a single complaint of yours on C1872 that I do not share).

Funny how it is fine for you to complain and do absolutely nothing, but not for me to complain and try to fix things or at least try to contribute. You have an absolutely terrible attitude in all of this. You want to dictate what I talk about, what I choose to use as a debating tool, you literally lie to try and argue (see the finance question on the other thread) and you refuse point blank to say we agree when we very clearly and very obviously do.



It is patently obvious, beyond obvious, that your entire contribution to this thread is because of a dislike of an individual rather than a dislike of their point. That is, when all is said and done, pretty damned sad. I feel genuinely sorry that you feel that is an appropriate or necessary way to behave. Whatever caused you to feel that way is clearly worthy of an apology so, unreservedly, whatever it was, I apologize.
 
Club 1872 wasn't set up to fill Dave's pockets. They are supposed to be working towards the greater good of The Rangers. Buying DK shares is of no benefit to The Rangers. I cannot see any positives whatsoever with regard to the future well-being of The Rangers should C1872 purchase these shares. I think it would most likely lead to increased infighting and power struggles within C1872 and eventually lead to it's downfall.
It looks weird writing "The Rangers" like that
 
Ahh, so it is your complete and utter inability to see anything in terms that are not strictly literal that is causing the problem?

It is some kind of issue, as a complete layman, to say 'Here is an idea we can talk about' and then, well, talk about it?


I absolutely 100% have an issue with C1872 and the way it is run. I have an issue with this scheme and I have serious questions over whether buying King's shares is the right thing to do at all. I say it clearly, in the open and without fear of people pulling any contradicting statements up from the past.

I also know that while sniping on here is fine, it is kind of hollow and pointless without actually trying to change those issues which is something YOU would do very well to consider, seeing as you have the knowledge, the experience and ability but point blank refuse to contribute either financially or it person, other than to make the exact same complaints I am making (point out a single complaint of yours on C1872 that I do not share).

Funny how it is fine for you to complain and do absolutely nothing, but not for me to complain and try to fix things or at least try to contribute. You have an absolutely terrible attitude in all of this. You want to dictate what I talk about, what I choose to use as a debating tool, you literally lie to try and argue (see the finance question on the other thread) and you refuse point blank to say we agree when we very clearly and very obviously do.



It is patently obvious, beyond obvious, that your entire contribution to this thread is because of a dislike of an individual rather than a dislike of their point. That is, when all is said and done, pretty damned sad. I feel genuinely sorry that you feel that is an appropriate or necessary way to behave. Whatever caused you to feel that way is clearly worthy of an apology so, unreservedly, whatever it was, I apologize.

It is your point. And the fact that you aren't offering practical suggestions, only fluffy ideas that you're not even fully committed to.

C1872 needs a proper structure and purpose. I'm clear on what that structure and purpose needs to be.
C1872 then needs to be clear about its intention. It wants to hold a significant shareholding in the club. Fans can back them or not.
C1872 then needs a clear business case/investment prospectus as to how it intends to buy Dave King's shares. Fans can scrutinise it and make an informed decision.

At that point you either have a functioning fans body with a clear structure, an engaged membership and a process in place to achieve its purpose. You also have a governance structure in place that gives fans a degree of protection and assurance going forward.

It's 100% about the vision. It isn't about the personality. But when the person is so unclear about the vision then it absolutely means a complete disagreement. I have absolutely no personal issues with anybody on FF. But if they can't commit to a clear vision of what they want and what they believe in? There's no real basis for a constructive discussion because there's nothing to discuss. At least have the courage to nail down what you really really want. Folk might disagree, but at least you've taken a proper position.
 
See, I told you that you were singularly failing to grasp what is going on :D

My 'suggestion' is titled 'fag packet maths' and states clearly in the op that it is made up as it goes along; IE, not a suggestion at all, but a debate starter. This has been explained on here since too, but you have clearly not bothered your arse reading it :D

As things stand, C1872 has 7500 members which includes lifetime members from the RST and is pitched with possible monthly outgoings significantly lower than the mooted amounts requested. There is a very real possibility that this will fail to get off the ground, what with needing to pretty much treble the standing number of contributors, and get more cash off them all. It also has no meat on the bones of how it will operate, which is, clearly judging by the general mood of the place since the announcement, not standing it in good stead with the people it has to convince.

It is in no way at all controversial to suggest that this might not work. it is even less controversial to suggest a way of discussing ideas that might help change that. It is even even even less controversial to volunteer your time to try and see if there is a way of making that work.

You certainly do your best at coming across as a dick. Well done.

You should re-read some of your posts. While accusing others of "singularly failing to grasp what is going on", you do well to demonstrate it.
 
It is your point. And the fact that you aren't offering practical suggestions, only fluffy ideas that you're not even fully committed to.

That is exactly, to the infinitely smallest point, what we are all here for. This is a messageboard, not the All Thing (Simmons reference!). It is a place where we can, with little or no consequence, chat about ideas, roll them around and see what we think about them, as well as other people's ideas. It is 100% not a requirement to be 100% invested in any topic you decide to bring up to enter into debate. At all.
C1872 needs a proper structure and purpose. I'm clear on what that structure and purpose needs to be.
Yet you are not sharing with them or us? Why?

C1872 then needs to be clear about its intention. It wants to hold a significant shareholding in the club. Fans can back them or not.
C1872 then needs a clear business case/investment prospectus as to how it intends to buy Dave King's shares. Fans can scrutinise it and make an informed decision.

At that point you either have a functioning fans body with a clear structure, an engaged membership and a process in place to achieve its purpose. You also have a governance structure in place that gives fans a degree of protection and assurance going forward.

I 100% agree with you. To the letter. Every damned syllable and word. Every inflection and hint contained within is agreed upon entirely by myself. All of it. Every last little bit.
It's 100% about the vision. It isn't about the personality. But when the person is so unclear about the vision then it absolutely means a complete disagreement. I have absolutely no personal issues with anybody on FF. But if they can't commit to a clear vision of what they want and what they believe in? There's no real basis for a constructive discussion because there's nothing to discuss. At least have the courage to nail down what you really really want. Folk might disagree, but at least you've taken a proper position.

Let me get this right? Unless I am an expert in fan ownership who can lay out exactly how I want it to work I am not allowed to discuss it? Are you freaking kidding me?


I DO NOT KNOW THE BEST WAY TO DO IT!!!

Said clearly and concisely with NO fear of ridicule or or contempt.

What I DO want to happen is for people to discuss it, reach consensus, engage with people who know better, employ them, even, and LEARN the best way to make it happen. That happens when someone throws an off the cuff idea out, someone else agrees with a part but sees an issue, someone like you sheds some light on the practicalities and at the end, we ALL have a greater understanding than we started with. You are trying to tell me that this is wrong? That unless I am 100% convinced of my 'fag packet maths' non idea, I am not allowed to bring it up? That is a joke.




As things stand, there is very little, perhaps no, chance of this working. It needs help, guidance, manpower, people chatting, people investing time and effort.


I am willing to do all of that. You are willing to do absolutely nothing.



Time you left the discussion I believe.
 
You certainly do your best at coming across as a dick. Well done.

You should re-read some of your posts. While accusing others of "singularly failing to grasp what is going on", you do well to demonstrate it.
Point it out. Feel free. Mate, you came here and started telling me I was not grasping things. As soon as it is leveled back at you, you call me a dick.


How exactly does that work?


Don't bother, not interested.
 
That is exactly, to the infinitely smallest point, what we are all here for. This is a messageboard, not the All Thing (Simmons reference!). It is a place where we can, with little or no consequence, chat about ideas, roll them around and see what we think about them, as well as other people's ideas. It is 100% not a requirement to be 100% invested in any topic you decide to bring up to enter into debate. At all.

Yet you are not sharing with them or us? Why?



I 100% agree with you. To the letter. Every damned syllable and word. Every inflection and hint contained within is agreed upon entirely by myself. All of it. Every last little bit.


Let me get this right? Unless I am an expert in fan ownership who can lay out exactly how I want it to work I am not allowed to discuss it? Are you freaking kidding me?


I DO NOT KNOW THE BEST WAY TO DO IT!!!

Said clearly and concisely with NO fear of ridicule or or contempt.

What I DO want to happen is for people to discuss it, reach consensus, engage with people who know better, employ them, even, and LEARN the best way to make it happen. That happens when someone throws an off the cuff idea out, someone else agrees with a part but sees an issue, someone like you sheds some light on the practicalities and at the end, we ALL have a greater understanding than we started with. You are trying to tell me that this is wrong? That unless I am 100% convinced of my 'fag packet maths' non idea, I am not allowed to bring it up? That is a joke.




As things stand, there is very little, perhaps no, chance of this working. It needs help, guidance, manpower, people chatting, people investing time and effort.


I am willing to do all of that. You are willing to do absolutely nothing.



Time you left the discussion I believe.

You're willing to do something. You don't know what you're willing to do, but you know that it's something.

Right now that's just more confusion and unhelpful distraction.

Want to do something? Be clear about what you want to do. No fag packet kite flying that you don't really want to do. Be clear and consistent.

People don't need to agree with your intentions but at least they'll understand what you actually want to do. C1872 needs a clear direction. It doesn't need vague ambitions.

The one thing I have been from the start is clear about what I'd want from c1872 (a community interest company), how I'd take fan ownership forward (fan funded share purchase by c1872 and then accountability to the c1872 membership) and what I'd prioritise (fan rep at board level but not in an operational role, CIC board running c1872 on the basis of clear aims, objectives and operating procedures). I've also been clear that I'd involve people with relevant experience to put all of those things in place.
 
Last edited:
You're willing to do something. You don't know what you're willing to do, but you know that it's something.

Right now that's just more confusion and unhelpful distraction.

Want to do something? Be clear about what you want to do. No fag packet kite flying that you don't really want to do. Be clear and consistent.

People don't need to agree with your intentions but at least they'll understand what you actually want to do. C1872 needs a clear direction. It doesn't need vague ambitions.
My ambitions are manifestly clear. So manifestly clear I have written a manifesto :D


Part of that is knowing I cannot set up supporter representation but knowing that experts can and running on the basis of employing them. I have zero problem, not one tiny issue, with saying 'other people know better than me here', so much so that I want to sit on a board specifically to make sure it employs* those people to do the work they know how to do. I guess that made uncomfortable reading for you, but as a courtesy, I will PM you what I have written on this right now.



*because you are such a damned pedant, I will clarify that this does NOT mean salary them, it means 'use' them.
 
My ambitions are manifestly clear. So manifestly clear I have written a manifesto :D


Part of that is knowing I cannot set up supporter representation but knowing that experts can and running on the basis of employing them. I have zero problem, not one tiny issue, with saying 'other people know better than me here', so much so that I want to sit on a board specifically to make sure it employs* those people to do the work they know how to do. I guess that made uncomfortable reading for you, but as a courtesy, I will PM you what I have written on this right now.



*because you are such a damned pedant, I will clarify that this does NOT mean salary them, it means 'use' them.

Which when you were challenged on the practicalities, you immediately suggested that actually that wasn't what you really wanted but at least it was a suggestion (but not really a suggestion you backed)

What are we fancy for dinner tonight?
- Curry
But you don't like curry.
- I know, but at least it was a suggestion.
 
I want a big united supporter group and will be changing from my £5 to the legacy later this month. I hope Club 1872 can get the name out a bit more to get the numbers up would like to think the bears oversea would back them a bit given they can't always support the club at games its another way for them to be heard.
 
Which when you were challenged on the practicalities, you immediately suggested that actually that wasn't what you really wanted but at least it was a suggestion (but not really a suggestion you backed)

What are we fancy for dinner tonight?
- Curry
But you don't like curry.
- I know, but at least it was a suggestion.
Um...ok..?

You do understand how a hypothetical conversation works right?

I have never, at ANY point, told you what I want to happen next. What I would choose to happen if it were up to me. Ever.
 
Um...ok..?

You do understand how a hypothetical conversation works right?

I have never, at ANY point, told you what I want to happen next. What I would choose to happen if it were up to me. Ever.

Bingo.

Finally. It's only taken you hours to admit that you haven't actually been honest with what you personally want. %^*& me it was difficult to get you to admit it. Hallelujah.

Want an actual productive conversation? Just set out what you'd want fan ownership to look like. We might agree. We might not. At least it would take the conversation forward.
 
There is no c1872 scheme right now. They have an ambition. They haven't put forward a viable proposal on how they believe that they can achieve it. That's what we need - a proper proposal form them. A business case if you will. An investment prospectus. A proper, researched document that fans can read, understand and then use to make an informed decision. They're not at the stage of doing that because structurally they look to be an absolute basket case. More wooly suggestions won't help with that.

You have a completely impractical and unworkable suggestion for a loose collective relying on proxy votes every AGM and you're falling into the same pit as c1872 have. You're really weak on details and practicalities. You're doing the exact same thing as c1872 are but with a different overall ambition.

Fans need detail. You can't just argue the what if you can't provide a realistic how.
Before issuing a prospectus I think C1872 need to address their issues of transparency and hold direct board elections with enough places on offer that a wider slice of the fanbase are represented and that no single clique can dominate.

Elected officials that the fanbase trust would go a long way to smoothing over the bumps and convincing the doubters to invest.

We know Rangers fans are a broad church. For Club 1872 to work it needs to reflect that. I'm not usually an advocate of large committees but in this case it needs to be demonstrable that the board is a democracy with a strong commitment to better governance.
 
Bingo.

Finally. It's only taken you hours to admit that you haven't actually been honest with what you personally want. %^*& me it was difficult to get you to admit it. Hallelujah.

Want an actual productive conversation? Just set out what you'd want fan ownership to look like. We might agree. We might not. At least it would take the conversation forward.
eh? I have at no point, ever, claimed to be saying what I want to happen? What an utterly bizarre assertion.

This is not nearly as hard to grasp as you are trying to make it but I will try and further simplify it for you;


I think that fan representation is a great ideal and something we should absolutely be aiming for.

I do not know the best way to make it happen or the model that suits us best.

Not knowing what suits us best, I am in no position to make an informed choice on what I want beyond a broad blanket of 'fan representation'.

I wish to discuss fan representation, learn the pros and cons of each method and come to a rational decision based on facts and my knowledge of our support from knowledge gained from people who do know their biscuits.

Rather than coming at it from your idiotic standing whereby someone must have a desire and try to make the world fit around it, I would like to see people put in place who actually KNOW what is best, rather than are certain in their convictions what is best.

I would like to help guide the organisation to the point of employing the right people to make the right decisions based on logic and fact, rather than seek to enforce my own limited ideals on the situation.



Easy.
 
Before issuing a prospectus I think C1872 need to address their issues of transparency and hold direct board elections with enough places on offer that a wider slice of the fanbase are represented and that no single clique can dominate.

Elected officials that the fanbase trust would go a long way to smoothing over the bumps and convincing the doubters to invest.

We know Rangers fans are a broad church. For Club 1872 to work it needs to reflect that. I'm not usually an advocate of large committees but in this case it needs to be demonstrable that the board is a democracy with a strong commitment to better governance.

They could achieve that by becoming a community interest company and having proper articles of association, policies and procedures.

It would be the first thing I'd do before anything else. Get that structure right and you can build member confidence. Get that structure right and you can operate effectively. Operate effectively and you can put together a more compelling case. Get the case right and it's an easier sell to the fans.

I've been in this position. I've been part of a trust that was preparing to transition into a CIC. I've been in meetings with club owners scrutinising a proposal to move to a new stadium. The discussions became more constructive when we moved from what they wanted to do to their more detailed proposal on how they were intending to achieve it.

It was at a lower level than Rangers. The same principles apply.
 
eh? I have at no point, ever, claimed to be saying what I want to happen? What an utterly bizarre assertion.

This is not nearly as hard to grasp as you are trying to make it but I will try and further simplify it for you;


I think that fan representation is a great ideal and something we should absolutely be aiming for.

I do not know the best way to make it happen or the model that suits us best.

Not knowing what suits us best, I am in no position to make an informed choice on what I want beyond a broad blanket of 'fan representation'.

I wish to discuss fan representation, learn the pros and cons of each method and come to a rational decision based on facts and my knowledge of our support from knowledge gained from people who do know their biscuits.

Rather than coming at it from your idiotic standing whereby someone must have a desire and try to make the world fit around it, I would like to see people put in place who actually KNOW what is best, rather than are certain in their convictions what is best.

I would like to help guide the organisation to the point of employing the right people to make the right decisions based on logic and fact, rather than seek to enforce my own limited ideals on the situation.



Easy.

If you have no clear views on fan ownership then, with the best will in the world, don't get involved with the c1872 board. Don't promote fag packet ideas. Hypothetical conversations are fine when they're about which Spice Girl you'd want to ride most. In an environment where people are actively trying to attract finance for a significant share purchase and when there's already an abundance of confusion, misinformation and misunderstanding - don't add to it. Make your mind up about what you want and then decide if c1872 is the vehicle to make that happen and if you can help it achieve those aims. Uncertainty only weakens c1872 further because the single biggest complaint from fans is that it's absolutely unclear what c1872 is for and how it operates.
 
They could achieve that by becoming a community interest company and having proper articles of association, policies and procedures.

It would be the first thing I'd do before anything else. Get that structure right and you can build member confidence. Get that structure right and you can operate effectively. Operate effectively and you can put together a more compelling case. Get the case right and it's an easier sell to the fans.

I've been in this position. I've been part of a trust that was preparing to transition into a CIC. I've been in meetings with club owners scrutinising a proposal to move to a new stadium. The discussions became more constructive when we moved from what they wanted to do to their more detailed proposal on how they were intending to achieve it.

It was at a lower level than Rangers. The same principles apply.
Agreed but my point is that the board needs to represent a wider cross section of the support. It can't be a clique - or even 2 opposing factions. It needs a wide enough membership that it has to openly build consensus.

The constitution of the Club 1872 board and the process that governs the elections to it are a bigger obstacle than the structure of the company that board is presiding over.
 
If you have no clear views on fan ownership then, with the best will in the world, don't get involved with the c1872 board. Don't promote fag packet ideas. Hypothetical conversations are fine when they're about which Spice Girl you'd want to ride most. In an environment where people are actively trying to attract finance for a significant share purchase and when there's already an abundance of confusion, misinformation and misunderstanding - don't add to it. Make your mind up about what you want and then decide if c1872 is the vehicle to make that happen and if you can help it achieve those aims. Uncertainty only weakens c1872 further because the single biggest complaint from fans is that it's absolutely unclear what c1872 is for and how it operates.
I am not promoting any ideas and I am beginning to struggle with how badly you are failing to grasp a very simple concept.


I had you down as a sharp individual. You are simply not grasping what is being said to you at all.


I want to push the board towards employing the correct people as it does not appear they have done this. I need no magic power or inside knowledge to achieve this aim. I need to cast a vote and hope others agree. No more and no less.


One last point before I terminate this for the night...


'Make your mind up about what you want and then decide if c1872 is the vehicle to make that happen and if you can help it achieve those aims'...

is a stupid, myopic and downright divisive idea. C1872 IS the fan vehicle for representation. If people disagree with how it is doing things and want it to do them differently, they absolutely MUST try and make it happen. The alternative is doing what you do. Nothing. Well, not nothing. Snipe and complain while trying to fix absolutely nothing.
 
I am not promoting any ideas and I am beginning to struggle with how badly you are failing to grasp a very simple concept.


I had you down as a sharp individual. You are simply not grasping what is being said to you at all.


I want to push the board towards employing the correct people as it does not appear they have done this. I need no magic power or inside knowledge to achieve this aim. I need to cast a vote and hope others agree. No more and no less.


One last point before I terminate this for the night...


'Make your mind up about what you want and then decide if c1872 is the vehicle to make that happen and if you can help it achieve those aims'...

is a stupid, myopic and downright divisive idea. C1872 IS the fan vehicle for representation. If people disagree with how it is doing things and want it to do them differently, they absolutely MUST try and make it happen. The alternative is doing what you do. Nothing. Well, not nothing. Snipe and complain while trying to fix absolutely nothing.

You can't make something happen unless you know what you want to make happen.
 
You can't make something happen unless you know what you want to make happen.
My god.


I want to make fan representation happen. I know where the destination is but I do not know the best way to get there. I know that an expert on map reading is a good place to start though, and would like to employ one to guide me there.
 
My god.


I want to make fan representation happen. I know where the destination is but I do not know the best way to get there. I know that an expert on map reading is a good place to start though, and would like to employ one to guide me there.

Alright.

Until you know how, make sure you don't volunteer as map reader.
 
Can I hire a map reader?

You can. Or you can learn to read a map.

Either leave c1872 to people with a clear vision or work out what your own vision is and put yourself forward for a role where you can work towards it. Hypothetical doesn't work in real world situations when Dave King is really offering his shares to C1872, c1872 are really asking fans for money and fans are really questioning whether or not it's a future they can support.

If you don't understand fan ownership or you don't really know about the different options for fan ownership then learn. Then form an opinion. Then take that opinion forward. This is not the time for the blind to lead the lame.
 
You can. Or you can learn to read a map.

Either leave c1872 to people with a clear vision or work out what your own vision is and put yourself forward for a role where you can work towards it. Hypothetical doesn't work in real world situations when Dave King is really offering his shares to C1872, c1872 are really asking fans for money and fans are really questioning whether or not it's a future they can support.

If you don't understand fan ownership or you don't really know about the different options for fan ownership then learn. Then form an opinion. Then take that opinion forward. This is not the time for the blind to lead the lame.
Who exactly do you think you are? You put time and effort into other organisations but refuse to do the same for Rangers on exactly the same subject? You make the same complaints, as in EXACT same complaints as everyone else but have never contributed a thin dime to C1872. You are trying to dictate how other people act, while being an absolutely master of failing to act?

You have neither the moral right nor high ground to make any kind of remark to anyone actually willing to try and effect change. At all. You will do it elsewhere, but not for the club you love?


I am happy to put my hands up and say I do not know the best way forward but your downright arrogance lets you dictate what should happen? I do, 100% know that I have a clear vision of how to make sure we get to the destination, the right people to make it happen and the obstacles that stand in the way of it.


ANYONE, yourself especially, claiming that they know exactly what needs to happen, how to make it happen and the best way to ensure it all goes to plan is a downright liar.

If, on the off chance you DO know all of those things but are refusing to act on it, you are beneath contempt.





The bottom line is very simple; people do not need to be experts to make things happen. They need to know the right people to bring in to ensure it happens. That stands for ANY walk of life. You do not need to be an expert map reader to get to the destination, you need to make sure you employ the correct tools.


If I do run I will look forward to your lack of vote.
 
Don't get all the 20K admin nightmare stuff. Has no one heard of the internet? My company do Nationwide's proxy vote 8Million !!!! People vote online, initial headache but after that it runs itself.

On a personal note I believe we already have fan ownership? Guys that put millions in are fans, rich ones albeit but fans and more importantly business people. Fan only clubs have no clue, look at St Mirren this week with a finance investigation.

Not for me....
 
8:25 - why doesn't King sell directly to fans?
9:35 - I just made that argument up for the sake of a hypothetical discussion. It's not what I'd actually choose.
11:50 - I don't know how you'd take things forward but want to talk to as many people as possible to find a way forward.
1:13 - I 100% know what I'd like to see to take things forward.

We're done. Your enthusiasm is admirable. You really need to focus it. I have absolutely no interest in being involved in another failed Rangers fans group. It's abundantly clear that some of the support are open to fan ownership and representation but in nothing like the numbers needed and that even those who back the idea in principle don't have the clear vision to take it forward. The best chance fans had of collective action and meaningful ownership was the early days of the RST when there was a group with a clear purpose. Its been downhill ever since.

I genuinely wish you luck with your efforts. You may even eventually end up with a vision that you actually believe in, that's practical to implement and that the wider support can buy into. It's just that by the time we get there, either via c1872 or whatever inevitably replaces it, King will be gone and it'll be another chapter in the now 20 year story of Rangers fans groups failing. And we'll still be arguing about whether or not fans get the day to day realities and practicalities of collective representation.

C1872 needs a proper structure. It then needs a clear process that it believes will deliver it's purpose. In an era where other clubs are getting those structures and processes right, it's depressing that we still don't have enough fans with a clear vision of what they want and how they'd achieve it. If we still can't put the right organisation in place after years of doomed attempts at doing so then we never will.
 
I’d part with £650 but I want shares.
If it’s after 5 years I’d accept that.
 
8:25 - why doesn't King sell directly to fans?
9:35 - I just made that argument up for the sake of a hypothetical discussion. It's not what I'd actually choose.
11:50 - I don't know how you'd take things forward but want to talk to as many people as possible to find a way forward.
1:13 - I 100% know what I'd like to see to take things forward.

We're done. Your enthusiasm is admirable. You really need to focus it. I have absolutely no interest in being involved in another failed Rangers fans group. It's abundantly clear that some of the support are open to fan ownership and representation but in nothing like the numbers needed and that even those who back the idea in principle don't have the clear vision to take it forward. The best chance fans had of collective action and meaningful ownership was the early days of the RST when there was a group with a clear purpose. Its been downhill ever since.

I genuinely wish you luck with your efforts. You may even eventually end up with a vision that you actually believe in, that's practical to implement and that the wider support can buy into. It's just that by the time we get there, either via c1872 or whatever inevitably replaces it, King will be gone and it'll be another chapter in the now 20 year story of Rangers fans groups failing. And we'll still be arguing about whether or not fans get the day to day realities and practicalities of collective representation.

C1872 needs a proper structure. It then needs a clear process that it believes will deliver it's purpose. In an era where other clubs are getting those structures and processes right, it's depressing that we still don't have enough fans with a clear vision of what they want and how they'd achieve it. If we still can't put the right organisation in place after years of doomed attempts at doing so then we never will.
A simple request. You and Northampton Loyalist are clearly extremely knowledgeable about fan ownership and clearly have a difference of opinion about the different ways of best achieving it. I sense some frustration creeping in to both of your posts, which is understandable, but it would be regrettable if that leads either of you to leave the debate because those of us who are less informed than you two need to know what real Rangers fans think before committing funds. I urge you both to keep the exchange going so that others can better understand this very important issue. I know from reading previous posts that you both agree on one thing: the future well-being of Rangers.
 
I agree. The only way I'd part with that money is if it goes straight to the club in exchange for shares.
 
8:25 - why doesn't King sell directly to fans?
9:35 - I just made that argument up for the sake of a hypothetical discussion. It's not what I'd actually choose.
11:50 - I don't know how you'd take things forward but want to talk to as many people as possible to find a way forward.
1:13 - I 100% know what I'd like to see to take things forward.

A deliberate and willful misrepresentation of what has been said. Dishonesty, if you like. I have never said 'I 100% know what I'd like to see to take things forward.', I have said I know where I want us to be but very much do not know the best way to make it happen. I have said specifically that several times. That, Pies, makes you a liar. After accusations of dishonesty, the fact you would offer up such an obvious own goal is indicative of where you are in all of this.


The rest of it falls under the same idiocy as the rest of your belly rumblings last night; 'I know best, I know directly how to do all this but you know what? I won't bother. I will do it for another group, I will learn from them but the absolute maximum I will do for Rangers is make the same moans and complaints as everyone else on a forum, and then sneer at other people actually willing to put effort in, while I sit and pontificate and refuse to do a single worthwhile thing myself'


That renders you and your narrow, myopic points entirely worthless in this wider debate. They will be treated as such.
 
I am happy to put my hands up and say I do not know the best way forward but your downright arrogance lets you dictate what should happen? I do, 100% know that I have a clear vision of how to make sure we get to the destination, the right people to make it happen and the obstacles that stand in the way of it.

This isnt even difficult any more.

Lets leave it there shall we?
 
It would be a unified body. Every person who bought in would do so with a proxy for 5 years signed over.

I absolutely buy into it and have approached C1872 tonight with a request to be considered for the board so I think you are perhaps mistaking someone disappointed with the offer and who thinks it is doomed to fail in it's current form with someone who does not want it to happen at all.
Agree with you NL, we need to discuss, prepare and then launch the plan to raise £13m. It can’t be done with the current resource.
 
Same way any company works. The fan CIC would have a board answerable to shareholders at an AGM. The CIC would legally own the shares. The CIC board would be answerable to the CIC shareholders. The CIC shareholders would be the Club 1872 members on a 1 member 1 vote basis.
We have thousands of supporters across a whole range of skills and qualifications. We need to ask them to step forward as candidates for the Board of C1872.
 
This isnt even difficult any more.

Lets leave it there shall we?
Yes, we bring in the right people to make it happen. I do not know how to get us there, but other people certainly do and I know how to get them on board. I agree completely, it is not ven that difficult to understand, therefore it can ONLY be deliberate from you. We both know it is.


Why are you being so blatantly dishonest and trying manipulate conversations by extracting single out of context points and twisting it?


On another thread a poster said that C1872 were looking at taking out loans. I told him that was not happening. 2 minutes later, literally 2 minutes, you jumped into the thread and told me I was an idiot for saying that C1872 were taking out loans and I was muddying the waters by doing so. All last night we were on the same page but you were determined to drag a fight out of me. It did not happen, then, it is not going to happen now. I have no idea what it is that has upset you so much in the past, it clearly was not as important to me as it was to you, but again, for the 3rd time now, whatever it was, I apologize.


I think you absolutely should leave it now (for the 3rd time), your lies and obfuscation are ever more apparent.
 
20,000 individual shareholders dont have the same voice as a single supporters group with 20,000 members.

I've read your comments with interest today. You're picking holes in C1872. Worryingly easy to do, but the bigger picture would be that as a unified body with a 25% shareholding, C1872 would have a far stronger voice in any discussions with other large shareholders than 20,000 individuals.

We can argue about the way C1872 are doing it. That doesnt get away from the fundamental decision that fans are going to have to make. It didnt matter if it was the RST back in the day, C1872 now or another fans group in the future. Fans either buy into the idea of supporter ownership in a way that gives fans a representation at board level and a strong voice or they don't.

The actual detail can be discussed, picked apart and put back together in a dozen different ways. Its time for people to come to terms with the notion of collective fan action and collective fan representation or forever abandon the notion and take our chances with whatever large investor comes along to buy whatever shares are available in the future.

This is about the concept of fan ownership and fan representation. You either back it or you don't. If you back it then there's scope for constructive conversations and action to improve C1872 and to build something that's fit for purpose. That's fit to represent fans interests with a meaningful shareholding and a seat on the club board.

If you don't back it? Lets not beat about the bush. People oppose fan ownership and fan representation for any number of reasons. That's their right. Those people are honest enough to admit that they simply don't buy into the concept and never will.
From your opening paragraphs.
The fact is, club1872 cut this deal without consulting members.
A system like above where they are obliged to consult the shareholders is about the only way I'd be interested.

They speak on behalf of the fans and make decisions on behalf of the fans.
But many a time what they do is NOT the will of Rangers fans in general or even their own members.

They seem to have made these decisions of their own back.
Is there any safeguard that would stop a Craig Whyte type scenario at club1872 where a host of rogue directors came on board and subsequently sold all the shares behind members backs?
 
From your opening paragraphs.
The fact is, club1872 cut this deal without consulting members.
A system like above where they are obliged to consult the shareholders is about the only way I'd be interested.

They speak on behalf of the fans and make decisions on behalf of the fans.
But many a time what they do is NOT the will of Rangers fans in general or even their own members.

They seem to have made these decisions of their own back.
Is there any safeguard that would stop a Craig Whyte type scenario at club1872 where a host of rogue directors came on board and subsequently sold all the shares behind members backs?

If C1872 was a proper community interest company? Absolutely. They would legally be prevented from disposing of company assets for any purpose that doesnt clearly benefit the community.

A really good real world example is where community interest companies are set up to own football clubs. The company could not legally sell the asset without clearly demonstrating that its for the benefit of the community. It means that a CIC couldn't sell a football stadium to a developer if it can't be demonstrated to be in the football club's interest. From our viewpoint a CIC Club 1872 that owned the 25% King shares couldn't sell them unless they could demonstrate that it would benefit the community - in this case the football club and the supporters.

Community Interest Companies were introduced very much with community ownership of assets such as football clubs in mind.
 
If C1872 was a proper community interest company? Absolutely. They would legally be prevented from disposing of company assets for any purpose that doesnt clearly benefit the community.

A really good real world example is where community interest companies are set up to own football clubs. The company could not legally sell the asset without clearly demonstrating that its for the benefit of the community. It means that a CIC couldn't sell a football stadium to a developer if it can't be demonstrated to be in the football club's interest. From our viewpoint a CIC Club 1872 that owned the 25% King shares couldn't sell them unless they could demonstrate that it would benefit the community - in this case the football club and the supporters.

Community Interest Companies were introduced very much with community ownership of assets such as football clubs in mind.
So where does it benefit Rangers or the community that shares are bought from a third party when the club are actively issuing new shares to put money into the bank?

What consultation took place with members and when were members with concerns given the opportunity to voice them?
 
So where does it benefit Rangers or the community that shares are bought from a third party when the club are actively issuing new shares to put money into the bank?

What consultation took place with members and when were members with concerns given the opportunity to voice them?

Short term? It doesnt put a penny into Rangers.

Neither does Dave King selling to anybody who wants to give him money.

Long term? If a community interest company owns a significant shareholding then those shares can't easily be disposed of to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to come along looking to buy a controlling interest in Rangers.

Fans need to separate the immediate financing of Rangers from the longer term protection of Rangers. Rangers needs money to operate. Right now we've got a few rich fans underwriting losses. That can't continue and the club needs to cut costs, increase revenues and find a more sustainable business model. There's a desire for fans to be part of closing that financial gap. Want to give a regular donation to the club? Great. It closes the financial gap in the here and now.

Thats not what fan representation and fan ownership is about. Right now the supporters have very little voice within the club. You pay your money and thats it. Dave King could sell his shareholding tomorrow. Douglas Park could do that too. As could any other shareholder. There are absolutely no guarantees as to who could or would buy those shares. If King, Park, Gibson or anybody else wanted to sell their shares then they'll do so to any willing buyer. That means its an absolute lottery as to who comes next. Is it another Dave King? Is it a Paul Murray? Or a Douglas Park? Or is it a David Murray? A Craig Whyte? A Charles Green.

A supporter community interest company that holds a significant shareholding that has real legal protections on the future sale of those shares at least puts the fans in the position of having a meaningful say. If its done properly then it removes that uncertainty. It means that you don't get the next Craig Whyte or Charles Green. You don't get a Rangers version of Chuck Glazer or Stan Kroenke. You don't get it because those types of potential owner simply can't own enough shares to let them do whatever they want with the club. This isnt about putting money into the club in the short term. It's about reaching a position where 2012 can't happen again because you can't have a situation where 1 man can effectively own the club lock, stock and barrel.

And thats the issue fans need to decide on. The German model looks at 50% +1. You still have clubs like Hoffenheim and RB Leipzig that rely on significant regular investment but whilst Deitmar Hopp might be happy throwing money at Hoffenheim, he can't reach a position where he owns the club outright and where he can therefore use it as a personal play thing. They can't get to a position where 1 man can essentially sink a football team.
 
.

And thats the issue fans need to decide on.
But fans didn't decide.
So who did?
It's your opinion and that of the people who done this behind members backs.

You talk of fans having a real meaningful say.
What fans? The fans and members had no say.

That's a major cause for concern and the big elephant in the room.
 
But fans didn't decide.
So who did?
It's your opinion and that of the people who done this behind members backs.

That's a major cause for concern and the big elephant in the room.

I've already said that I don't think C1872 is fit for purpose and that they've done things in completely the wrong way.

The big elephant in the room? Fans don't trust C1872 and have very good reasons for not doing so. The only marginally smaller elephant in the room? We have a fanbase that is still massively sceptical towards the concept of fan ownership.

Neither of those things change until C1872 is fit for purpose and it then puts a proper proposal to the support. It may well be that there's a strong case for supporter ownership at a meaningful level at Rangers. It's just that C1872 in it's current form isnt the organisation to deliver it and there's absolutely no clear prospectus for what they actually want to deliver.
 
Back
Top