Jump to content

 

 

Royal_Blue_Legend

  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

Location

  • Location
    Swindon, UK

Interests

  • Interests
    Th Rangers, all things computing and gardening

Occupation

  • Occupation
    EMEA Support Desk Manager

Favourite Rangers Player

  • Favourite Rangers Player
    Alistair McCoist
  1. This is off the back of a tweet i made regarding hospitality, basically saying the'd make a saving and could use that money for shares. For me, you should be able to track how your money is being spent and whilst "the money goes directly to Rangers", they should be transparent rather than use the "it's covered under the 5% admin". The positive from this is they've been upfront about the arrangement although they didn't answer the question on what the office costs. Likely around £2K a month, if they are paying full price. If they are in such a position that they need to raise £1M they should be cutting costs if that money isn't available in the bank. It would go a long way, positive PR and all that.
  2. Name: We Welcome the Chase Podcast - "Two Televisions for Eyes" - Episode 96 Category: WWTC Podcast Date Added: 2018-02-10 Submitter: Royal_Blue_Legend Join Snags, Baz, PAS, Tat magoo and Simmy as we try and draw Baz out of a bad mood...with little success... Paul forgets where he is/was and Simmy has a black out...it's really good, honest! We Welcome the Chase Podcast - "Two Televisions for Eyes" - Episode 96
  3. For me, if the blog accurately reflects the resignation letters then fair play to them for speaking out. It's clear there is a smear campaign (I can guess where that's coming from) against the 3 directors who did step down and i find it disappointing that 1872 won't support them in a positive and professional manner. We can all be confident that the outgoing party gave their all to the organisation and this latest statement will likely trigger another round of membership cancellations.
  4. The election process has been interesting to say the least. SDS have been blamed with "not vetting" applications which is not accurate at all. I approached SDS for comment and was told that they were there as a third party to ensure that applications met the criteria set out on the club 1872 website, which the majority did. They actually rejected 2 that didn't... At this point the Club1872 working party have a duty to protect it's members and if indeed donohoes statement is untrue, they reject it... as in any normal application process, if it does not meet criteria or is misleading you reject it, simple as that. you don't even need a statement....What happens next is a leading statement and a barrage of email reminders to advise you pretty much to not to vote for him...very unprofessional. to be clear i'm not defending donohoe however i feel he could have been handled in a more professional manner, it looks like a PR stunt. the points bearger kindly highlighted above are very interesting, in that James blair has been asked if club1872 would own any assets and he doesn't believe they would under the projects CIC which begs the question, what is it actually for? is it community benefiting or is it plc benefitting....time will tell. The removal of pre-emption rights could kill the FO dream forever, you could suggest that the PLC want to protect their investment and shareholding , the removal of those rights means they can go to any party and offer them shares without having to offer them to other shareholders instantly diluting the other shareholders shares. For a better explanation watch the final hustings video, Mr Mcgookin articulates it very well. The board may be Rangers fans but i'm sure they would also like a return on their investment, which makes them very different to you or me IMO. 2012 has taught me you cannot trust everyone, just because they own and run RFC. Which leads me on to my next point, COI, I've heard varying statements on this "he could walk out the room", "we all have a COI because we are rangers fans". The fact of the matter is if JB has to make a call which would not directly benefit the PLC or damage it's market rep in some way then he's going to choose the PLC every time, You cannot state that this will never happen and it HAS to be considered, The PLC pay his law firm for his legal services and there is a chance he will have a competition clause in his contract which will protect the PLC. It's no surprise he's offering another year to finish the work he started...i'm sure he has worked tirelessly but ii don't believe he should be standing. I find it odd that some candidates have been picked over others or "invited" to appear in the newspapers, I don't think it's a coincidence that they are RST-backed members either, each person has their own unique story to tell and it should be a catch -all process so everyone has a fair chance. Alex Wilson appearing is not a surprise, he's Paul Murrays friend and was one of the blue knights, so folk would be naturally interested in his involvement . OMOV -it's important to remember that the club1872 board have an influence over it's members, "do you wish to unite the fans groups?", This is a Leading statement i.e Prompting desired answer, so in this case it leads you into voting yes because if you vote no you don't wish to unite fans groups... are we really surprised it was an "overwhelming majority"? of which less than 3k voted...if we can afford to pay for 50k leaflets to put around the stadium, advertising space (all non-member approved purchases) in the stadia and press room we can surely afford to reach out to the offline member base and encourage them to vote via another medium... text, telephone, postal, paper... etc.? I can see why tannochside bear thinks this is a heavily slanted process, from the outside looking in, it certainly appears that way. This board will have a collective responsibility of over £1m in fans cash, each and every one of you should be able to trace your donation from start to finish, without question. Absolute transparency. I'd like to take this opportunity to wish good luck to all candidates and i hope you hear and share some of the concerns raised in this thread, all very pertinent and concerning.
  5. Christine, it's sweet you fixate on that as a reason for me to raise concerns, it really doesn't bother me as much as you think it does, but if it makes you happy....
  6. as far as i'm aware the petition was published to highlight that there was no formal complaints procedure for RF and also due to requests falling on deaf ears, Raised by a young man who cared about the organisation he supported and was unwilling to be "pushed" in a direction he didn't want it to go, fair play to him. I don't believe Club1872 have a formal complaints procedure either and i doubt we'll see the board implement one as a priority,. It seems the default response is...oh but look you only got 68 signatures... what an absolute shame. I simply cannot see success under the new board structure which will likely be Craig Houston Steve Sinclair D'Art James Blair Laura Akers Joanne Percival Alex Wilson A mix of RST and friends of the board and then D'art who is well respected and i love his written work, i fear he'd be the silent minority. "It's a democracy, get over it", "one member one vote"
  7. Morning all, I've been watching this develop over the last few days and, as expected it's being spun at those who had the audacity to resign from what appears to be an poorly formed and governed organisation and i'm certainly not referring to RF as a single entity but the umbrella company (ies) that is/are Club 1872. Let's be clear on one point, NO organisation or the club for that matter should be without question, history tells us that this is key to any success and transparency is vital, moving forward. As Fury rightly points out There are a few on SM who are smearing and there are a few ill informed guesses in their statements which is not helpful, however, there are some genuine concerns which i feel should be addressed. IMO emailing in vs live tweeting is a step back, if you answer is on SM then you are accountable and someone else who may have the same question can see the answer too. Both channels have their advantages but both should be used frequency. For me it's a question of why did they resign? 1 director is ok....2 is a worry...3 requires answers and if rumours are to be believed there is a 4th coming and from what I've seen so far it's all mud-slinging, zero clarity (they needed a rest...hmmm) and zero thanks, A couple of key points - 1. Why is nobody questioning the resignation of Kelly Johnstone? a well-respected lady who runs a charity and is well versed in corporate governance - nobody was more excited than her to be on board in what felt like an exciting venture , surely if she believed she was a voice that could be heard and was able to drive changes she would have stayed on board and ran for the Club 1982 board in August? If you've seen her latest twitter post she appears to be upset that she never had thanks from any of the people involved. For me she would have been a great face for Club 1872. 2. Peter Ewart, a financial expert, why was he never confirmed in post? a quick scan of companies house shows that he was never registered as a director, yet the others were. (Richard Gough is a nuance in this, IMO, as I believe he was elected on to drive the merger vote, that appeared to be his sole purpose, i'm yet to see evidence to the contrary although he was never registered either) 3. When Greg resigned his resignation letter was released, why have we not seen the other 3, do they contain information that Club1872 do not want you to see?, Donohoe's reasons appear to be part-quoted and if his statement regarding the member register is true then there is a potential breach of the companies act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/8/chapter/2), further to that how can you legitimately count a member vote when you allegedly cannot accurately state who is a member and who isn't, a truly frightening prospect!? The latest minutes suggest that it "may" be accurate in "may". 4. I'm not 100% on this but i vaguely recall something in the RF AOA which stated that 50% of active members must vote in order for a resolution to be passed? can someone confirm? RF CIC is THE share purchasing vehicle (as stated in the proposal), it's no coincidence that the RST CIC changed it's purpose from fan ownership because you cannot have 2 CIC's with the same purpose, each CIC will need appointed directors. The WP have to accept that this is a club1872 issue not an RF issue, you cannot simply attach positive-only news to club1872, when it suits, and append all negative stories to RF or other groups. The guys and gals who were elected to the RF board joined the WP for Club1872 almost immediately and are therefore representatives of it. if FO is to be truly successful at RFC the organisation driving it need to be honest, open and transparent at all times, I apologise in advance for the loose construction of this post.
  8. What's interesting about this is one of my very good mates works at Doncaster rovers in the youth department and he sent a damning report on forrester, atitude etc... he said "wait till he gets kicked, he'll get found out soon enough"..... I'm yet to see any evidence of this! i've been really impressed with the lad, he's clearly got ability. I think W&W are his ideal mentor team
  9. who foots the bill if the project goes over budget? who pays the ongoing maintenance costs.... this hasn't been thought out well.
  10. We certainly do and for me that's not a bad thing, we are a cautious lot the members voted to continue discussions and then the visibility ended, that's not just RF's fault it's other fan groups that were present and the club. far too many claiming we voted FOR the proposal. we didn't. What's divisive is people who have seen the proposal saying "wait and see" not implying you have btw. and not answering questions on info that's clearly been leaked (however accurate it is)
  11. What's interesting about the merger debate is that anyone who opposes it is suddenly in it for "themselves" and it's the exact same group of people calling that out..which is revealing. There are some very capable people elected to the RF board who certainly are not in it for themselves and have concerns regarding the proposed merger. Their aim is to protect the members and the club and, of course, act on behalf of the members. I'm confident they will do that to the very best of their abilities. The proposal, when presented, has to be done in a neutral manner and already we are seeing certain RF directors saying they'll push for it to happen, not only is that unprofessional, it appears to be a tactic to influence. Influence is something that can be done and can be presented in a number of different ways. What's encouraging for me is that since Craig whyte et al, there isn't a lot you can hide from Rangers fans any more and we should continue to question and question no matter who is in charge of the club because we will never know what's up next. We can be our best and worst enemies at times but this scenario should be a concern for the fans and the board of RIFC, it's not a phase that will pass I'm sure.
  12. Thanks to everyone who voted for me and i look forward to the result. Those elected are there to facilitate the members and should remember that when listening to proposals. Rangers First – Core Principles Rangers First is by definition a One Member One Vote organisation and the democratic right of all members is highly regarded. Rangers First Board Members are elected by and responsible to the membership. Rangers First Board Members have a term of office that stops them becoming fixtures on the board. Rangers First is a fiercely independent organisation in which no undue pressure or influence can be applied. Rangers First aims to have a good and fertile working relationship with any and all RIFC Boards however they are constituted but will not favour any groups or individuals other than by the democratically confirmed support of its membership.
  13. Updated with fundraising link, any donations much appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.