Stimpy

It's not only down to him. The rep for the females has a similar mindset, and as this proposal made it through the discussion stage, there must be others.

The female rep looks awfully young. Perhaps easier to influence and steer in a favoured direction. The NARSA rep (overseas guy) is apparently anti-SoS/UoF/RST/FF etc. though can't confirm for definite.

Excellent, thanks mate!

 

There's some articles been published on the Gers site today which might help you with info:

 

Remembering Our Heroes

 

Aird Tear Only Minor

 

No Regrets Over Loy

Cheers mate, I'll fire something up tonight.

This reminds of the time when Murray and Bain were rubbishing forums and encouraged fans to ignore them. Keep in house with the ears covered.

I'll do Falkirk if no one else has volunteered.

NO I have not stated any such thing. There is no such proposal so far as I am aware.

 

The proposal was that the Board do not communicate directly in future with unelected leaders of groups. At the last meeting it was agreed to put this to the directors. As I was at great pains to point out there are a number of groups who have properly elected leaders who would not be excluded by the proposal. I agree with the proposal and I have also explained why I agree with it.

You're not getting it. There's a proposal on the table that is looking to restrict communication access to and from Rangers FC. You, your peers and any other Rangers supporters has no right to discuss and propose such action. 49% of 200 people actually paying to join does not give you any more legitimacy than the fan who has had a ST all his/her supporting life. Your ignorance on this subject is truly astonishing. Disgraceful and you are obviously not fit to represent Rangers supporters.

He has already stated that he agrees with the proposal. To now turn back on that, in the face of criticism on Gersnet, would only succeed in him alienating the wee ragers over on RM. Mr Harris has made his bed on this particular issue.

if so, I'd like to know how members make their own proposals to the RFB?

I agree with that, and would enhance it further by saying that, at the earliest possible opportunity, the RFB arranges meetings with the main fans groups like the RST and Association, to discuss mutually relevant topics for debate with the club, and seek a way of working together when the need arises, while being completely independant of each other and free to continue to do their own body of work for their members.

 

The RFB should be mindful that both the RST and Association's members have actually went out of their way to be members of those organisations, which are both fully democratic with regular meetings and elections, not co-opted into membership by purchase of a ST. If there has even been 200 people who bought the £25 package to enable them to vote in this I will be absolutely stunned, which means the RFB is actually the least democratically elected board of the three.

This could the most important post in this thread. Great advice and will help bridge gaps.

If you have read through the thread you will know that I have never made any such suggestion.

You've stated that the RFB will discuss the proposal further.

So, I'm not asking who proposed it, I'm asking will you stand against it and propose to drop the idea?

Where does the proceeds of ticket sales go?

BH, after reading this thread, the feedback across the online community and taking a lot of justified flack will you now propose to scrap the proposal that the club only speaks to TRFB? Surely you have realised that this is nonsense and will only further divide the support.

Cage rattled!

Can I drop by on the bus home and collect a doggy bag for Ardoyne RSC?

Enjoy your night, folks!

I'm surprised at FS's category having such a small number of voters and I think it's logical to assume that means that less than 1,000 voted overall.

 

Really thought it would have been anywhere up to 5,000.

How many of the season ticket holders automatically enrolled are aware that they're in a membership scheme?

Agreed. My first draft of the reply did include UoF.

 

The use of the word "unelected" is crazy anyway. Let's say that SoS consist of 2 people and they both decide that Craig Houston should be the spokesman and should be able to speak to the directors. They would therefore meet the criteria that the RFB appear to be setting and would be able to meet the directors of the club.

I propose you and Frankie to represent GN's members' interests with Rangers. Can I get a seconder, a quick vote then we've got legitimate status. Forget that we're life long fans, season ticket holders, shareholders, maybe even past bond holders.

BH, if an elected rep from the RST or Association wants to meet with the club who do they go to? RFB or through their usual channels?

I welcome this investment from the philanthropic billionaire Mike Ashley.

By the weekend we will have a wishlist of players drawn up in a new thread.

So what on earth is the excuse for us cancelling the previous ones going to be now? I give up.

I'm thinking the departure of Wallace has possibly weakened his influence. Ashley wants a full house looking at his advertising boards covering the stadium.

*goes for a lie down*

Cheers Shorebear, nothing to displease you I hope lol

Not at all. Empathy as you bang your head up against the wall trying to get past the tin foil hats, lol!

I think a lot of other clubs supporters would say the same time thing about their own clubs. Time moves on. Things change. Football clubs are not immune from change either.

I'd argue Rangers changed almost as soon as SDM arrived.

I'd hazard a guess at the context at which you mean change is totally different to Gunslinger's. The Rangers I grew up watching had a wee bit of class and was the envy of Scotland. That was no different to my old man or his. The Rangers we're watching, because of Green and co, has little class left and is generally the laughing stock of Scottish Football. Quite an achievement when we're in the company of terrorist loving, peado harbourers.

Cheers Zappa, I usually post on RM, but thought I'd have a gander over here.

Welcome. I've seen you post on RM.

From those minutes it seems to be a combination of irrelevant bureaucracy and undermining any 'detractors' (ie people not afraid to speak out).

 

Is it Monty Python or the film Brazil where there's a joke that sees a character having to fill out a form to fill out another form? This reminds me of that. Worrying about pedantic nonsense when we have a club torn apart.

Letting forums such as RM steer you is dangerous, especially if the comments were made in their finance section.

It comes across as elitism and is not what the RFB should be all about.

What is the RFB about? Undermine fans groups? Control and steer fan opinion in favour of the board? Genuine attempt at fan representation?

Ashley's lawyers would walk all over the top of the SFA. Not necessarily a bad thing, but precedence shows the SFA to be vindictive when dealing with Rangers. No doubt that'd be used by any legal team to get over any past agreement. I'd like to think our governing body is looking after our interests but as has been said, chocolate teapot springs to mind.

McCoist may be a lot of things but he's certainly no fool he knows exactly what the fans think of our style and performances,

Indeed. Ally's far more intelligent that people give him credit for. Thing is dude, his own self belief, borne out of his success as a player, and perhaps turning the fans onside in the 80s, is driving his self belief. His attitude as player remains but sadly it ends there.

This is where a strong, competent board is needed.