Rangers round-table sessions are good, but they hide a significant problem | OneFootball

Rangers fan round tables bring talk but not power

Rangers are continuing their fan round-table sessions, but while they sound noble, they carry a deep flaw. The club insists this is about connection and communication, yet the truth is fans have no real say. The latest meeting included senior figures like Kevin Thelwell, Patrick Stewart and Andrew Cavenagh, who sat down with supporter groups and outlined plans for ongoing dialogue. But dialogue is not decision-making, and that is the problem at the heart of this entire exercise.

Fans can speak but cannot decide

Rangers supporters have made clear that these sessions are a chance to express views and share feedback, not to influence club policy. That is the key distinction from the previous AGM system, where shareholders had voting rights on certain motions. Now, it is only talk. Fans can raise concerns, ask questions and even demand explanations, but they cannot trigger action. This change strips the process of accountability. Supporters are effectively guests in a boardroom that still belongs solely to the hierarchy.

The illusion of transparency

The club is pushing the idea of transparency, claiming these meetings will build trust. They highlight the inclusion of supporter groups like the Union Bears and Copland Collective, saying it shows broad representation. Yet transparency without power is only theatre. These discussions may feel meaningful in the moment, but there is no mechanism to ensure that the board listens or acts. It becomes a grace meeting — polite conversation dressed as progress. The club controls the agenda, the minutes and the follow-up. When fans leave, Rangers management decide what, if anything, changes.

A one-way street of communication

The plan to open ballots for ordinary supporters and introduce online participation sounds inclusive. It gives fans outside Glasgow a voice, which is positive on paper. However, even that gesture does not equal shared control. A voice without vote is symbolic, not structural. The real decisions on recruitment, leadership and policy remain firmly in the hands of those already making them. Fans may appreciate being heard, but being heard is not the same as being heeded.

If Rangers fans genuinely want unity, they must move beyond symbolic gestures. True transparency requires consequence. Until supporters can influence more than words, these sessions risk becoming little more than managed PR. Rangers fans deserve more than seats at a table with no authority. They deserve a voice that shapes, not just echoes, the club’s future.