BrahimHemdani

BD. As I can tell you with some authority from my role on SD, the position of Supporter's representative on a Club board is extremely difficult if not impossible to manage for at least two reasons: 1) Once elected as a Club director the supporter has a fiduciary duty to the the Club, which includes the confidentiality of discussions. This leads to the second major issue because the supporter cannot report back in any detail; 2) The Supporter's organisation quickly view the person they elected to represent them as a "rogue director" and conflicts arise. (We have the current example of messrs King and Murray being "hopelessly conflicted" in their roles as Directors of RIFC and RRL.) No question that it is a laudable concept but it is another concept that may not work in practice, indeed it has failed in numerous clubs. I think a directly elected respected supporter would be a better idea, which is one of many reasons that I want to see a membership scheme starting with all those who buy ST's. I would run that separately to C1872, which is clearly a shareholders organisation first and foremost.

I think we need a new rule that you only get a point for correct number of Rangers' goals if you correctly forecast the result; seems unfair to me that you get a point for forecasting Rangers to score one, as in this case when you actually forecast Rangers to lose or draw.

Seems YB is correctly placed first based on the rules: Rules for players on equal points in the standings table: based on the most difficult things to predict in order as follows: - CS/Correct Score - FGS/First Goal Scorer - RG/Rangers Goals (number of) - CR/Correct Result (W, L or D)

I am fortunate to be able to say that I have been at the site in Kill Devil Hills as well as witnessing "The Lost Colony" play at Manteo on Roanoke Island. Some may also draw parallels with the disappearance of the settlers. http://thelostcolony.org/about-the-play/ My comments for what they are worth, based on my past experience in the RST, SDS, RFB and in the formation of RF as well as the boards of other organisations: An organisation born out of two warring factions was always bound to have significant teething problems. Club 1872 is at a very low ebb, survival is the name of the game and new elections are the key. I do not agree with the short term re-appointment of any resigned directors, however talented and well-intentioned; ahead of new elections which should be organised asap. I think 7 is a good number for a board of directors, any more makes decision making very difficult, any less makes it unrepresentative. The directors need to have the power to make certain decisions whilst others are left to the members on the one member one vote basis; the two are not mutually exclusive. If the only decision a director can make is to put an issue to the membership; there is no point in being a director. No one director should be able to override the others, whatever the theory or reasoning behind this situation. No one director should be the sole signatory on bank accounts. No person with a conflict of interest real or perceived through direct or indirect involvement with Rangers FC should be allowed to stand for election to the Board. I do not agree that such conflicts can be "managed". I agree with BD's comments about sub groups, sounds great in theory but unworkable in practice other than on a short term ad hoc basis. What ever happened to the RF sub groups? I also think there is great difficulty with the compromise model of one organisation charged with buying shares and investing in the Club. I understand why this came about and that there are some economies of scale but even with set percentages there will still be conflicts. Perhaps there should be two boards? I have been sorely tempted to cancel my monthly subscription but have taken the view that that would be pointless; the only way to change the organisation for the better is from within.

It truly makes you want to vomit.

One thing he's not is stupid. He knew about it alright, enough people complained about it; and even if he somehow argues that he didn't then he certainly knew when RF got legal advice.

It appears he has 5 yellows plus the yellow/red vs Aberdeen for which he has already served a suspension v Hearts. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/clint-hill/leistungsdaten/spieler/13583 I am not certain about the first yellow vs Aberdeen, if it counts and I think it might then he has 6 and will be facing a suspension but as far as I'm aware it doesn't kick in right away.

Not clear if this means that the poll is being scrapped but it should be.

Email just in Update Dear member Club 1872 is disappointed to announce the departure of William Cowie and Alex Wilson from its Boards. Members will be aware that Club 1872 differs from other companies by having its members not its directors take key decisions. That is not something every director will be comfortable with, although it is something all directors committed to when joining the Board. Club 1872 thanks William and Alex for their efforts and hopes they will continue to offer Club 1872 their support and encouragement going forward. Members should note that a new constitution will be published for Club 1872 by the end of this month. Meetings will be held to consult with members on the document and members will also have the chance to send their suggestions and thoughts to Club 1872. The new constitution will enshrine members rights to take key decisions, call meetings, deal with Board appointments etc. Quarterly members meetings will be introduced and there will also be an enhanced role in the new constitution for working groups. Going forward, we envisage establishing around 5 working groups, each with up to 5 members. Groups will have a direct line of communication with the Board through a central co-ordinator who, amongst other tasks, will require to consider and report to members on each group’s recommendations and progress. It is hoped these and further changes will enhance and protect the members’ role in Club 1872 and improve engagement going forward. The Board will be communicating over the next week with those who have expressed an interest in contributing as volunteers to Club 1872. Elections will follow for a new Board of Club 1872 and the arrangements for these elections will begin directly after members have decided on the new constitution. Anyone who wishes to participate can apply by emailing info@club1872.co.uk Club 1872

If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then we are better of without them. You cannot resign (as in Laura and Joanne) and then withdraw your resignation and expect to be welcomed back whenever you feel like it.

It is right to poll the members but it is wrong that one director can overrule the others and in any event the poll should have been individual not collective.

Talk that Hill was suspended?

Rangers 2 Aberdeen 2 FGS Miller

Given we tend to win 2-1 at home and they tend to win 2-1 away; 2-2 looks a fair bet.

Of course, or "overs" in terms of the bowlers. Shows how long ago it is since I was the scorer for the school team and the influence of baseball, when we used to get it on C4.

If i read this correctly the remaining directors ex Mr Blair would have preferred new elections to a poll to re-appoint the two ladies who resigned and want back. In that case, the poll is a fraud and new elections should be held forthwith. I'm not sure about the legalities of a CIC operating with one director but at best it seems inadvisable.

I agree with that. The comings and goings are an embarrassment, justified or not. I don't entirely agree with Gaffer but there is something in the point of view you don't resolve an issue caused by someone else if you are the good guy or lady and you resign in protest; seldom does that work. It's harder to stay and fight but sometimes it's the only way. Rather than rushing to re-appoint the ex-directors in question, the remaining (one or two?) should resign (at the date of an election to be held) and hold fresh elections at the first available opportunity.

ACCOUNTS OF THE 5TH OFFICIAL GERSNET DINNER Balance brought forward from 4th Dinner 30/01/2016 £73.22 Add/ Interest Received £0.18 Sub Total £73.40 Received for 11 dinners @ £17.50 £192.50 Sub Total £265.90 Paid for 11 dinners and first round of drinks £192.30 Balance £73.60 Add/Overpayment £1.50 Balance carried forward £ 75.10 The receipt and copy bank statement will be submitted to admin for verification. Sorry about the alignment, couldn't be bothered to set up a spreadsheet.

Glad you enjoyed it. Enjoyed your company and that of your good lady.

I can assure you, I've read every word, thanks very much. At no time have I ever suggested I had the right to determine anyone's privacy; which is why I asked the question in the first place. Anyway, I'm done with it. I'll shortly post the dinner accounts, then Frankie can post the edited pictures and that will be an end to this dinner.

I already agreed that's your privilege. The point I am making is that it wasn't necessary to remove the picture because your face could have been greyed out at the outset, if I'd known you didn't want it published or later when I did know. If you look back you'll see I asked for help with that but the picture was removed instead. That's what I'm annoyed about.

I'm annoyed because the pictures were removed when that shouldn't have been necessary and it's brought a sour note to an event that most folk seem to have enjoyed. However, the pictures are going to be reinstated with your face greyed out (no offence), so it will indeed be sorted.

In the League games Dodoo is well ahead of the pack with 188 mins per his 3 goals. So is Forrester and Hyndman is level with Garner, which only goes to prove there are lies damned lies and statistics. In cricketing terms a minimum number of "at bats" should be considered before applying such statistics. Garner is two minutes better off per his 7 league goals than Miller with 10; but Miller has 7 assists to Garner just two. On that basis and what we have seen the last two weeks Miller should be on the wing and Garner in the middle next season; but we don't want TB to have apoplexy now do we. I think the real problem is that PC knows he can't get rid of Garner and has other priorities in terms of the money available for reinforcements, so he will have to use him as best as possible.

IIRC the next election is not due until September, if arrangements were made now, a new election could be held in June. This would allow the remaining directors to answer for the current situation, those wishing to return to state their case and any new candidates to put forward their CV.

Got it in one, Craig.