BrahimHemdani

I believe that such a conflict could be managed. However the current experience has shown that in some cases, even if there are reassurances and these reassurances come from someone who should know how conflicts of interest should be managed, problems can emerge.

 

As such, I agree with BH that such a clause is needed, with one proviso.

 

I would like to see C1872 have a goal of having supporter representation on the Board of the club. This shouldn't mean that if such a person was on the C1872 Board that they would have to stand down.

 

However that person would need to have the sole aim of representing the support and nothing else.

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.

The penultimate game of the season ends with only Gribz and compo gaining 1 point each for predicting the Correct Number of Rangers Goals.

 

No one got the Correct Result, FGS or the Correct Score.

 

It's all square at the top between Rousseau and Yorkshire Bear going into the final game!

 

Latest Standings:

 

 

A week-by-week tally of scores can be found here:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-uQa9LP4du35rep3iUemqtj2NihPxHUuAGJFhz2WW0I

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.

Nobody knew that his role included being the club and King's sole representative at the Takeover Panel. That was a clear conflict of interest, which is backed up by the fact that C1872 have virtually nothing in respect of this important issue.

 

He is seen in the directors box laughing with the club directors at every game and at the same time C1872 are doing nothing to hold these directors to account.

It truly makes you want to vomit.

He had a conflict of interest from the outset. One he knew about, or at least should have known about.

 

C1872 was founded on the promise of transparency and independence - James Blair should have known that his independence would be called into question.

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.

I can't imagine he's reached a points threshold, but this is a blow if true BH.

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

D, when they were appointed they signed a declaration that all key decisions would be put to members. They did not want members to have a say in this.

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.

In my experience James has never done that. He has been trying to facilitate the return of Laura and Joanne since three days after they resigned and before it was made public. Obstacles were constantly put in his way. He wanted to poll members as it was a key decision.

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

A whimpering end...

2-2

Miller

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

For future reference though: "at bats" is a Baseball term. The relevant cricketing term is "innings".

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.

A mess throughout.

 

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.

It's fast looking like Club 1872 is going to fall apart. For the good of it the entire board should resign.

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.

food was excellent....that's a good restaurant

I'd go back there...would recommend it

Glad you enjoyed it.

Enjoyed your company and that of your good lady.

I'm not sure if you are reading responses BH - but I have already explained why it WAS necessary. The pictures were removed because one of the attendees didn't want a picture of them on the forum. The moderator removed the picture to honour the request. The moderator absolutely did the right thing. If you cant see that then I really cant help you. It isn't for YOU to decide whether someone wishes to remain private or not. And if the moderator didn't know who that individual was then they had no option but to remove the pictures. Nobody, at any point in time, said that the removal was permanent. They were removed as a precaution.

 

To be honest I think you are making Mount Everest out of a molehill. Nobody else is making an issue of it. Hopefully everyone can see the merits of the pictures being removed, temporarily.

 

As for bringing a sour note - I think you are also culpable in that - everybody has tried to suggest that everyone move on - but you refuse to.

 

You simply don't have the right to determine someone else's privacy or wishes for them. It really is that simple.

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.

So you think it's OK to have people's pictures posted when they don't want them to?

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.

You're annoyed because I don't want my picture posted on the internet or because I didn't hear you asking if it was OK for you to post them?

 

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.

I'm sure i saw a stat on the goals to minutes played ratio and Garner is ahead of Miller. Not necessarily a stellar endorsement, but does suggest there is more to be gained if we play Garner and also play to his strengths. For me, his two performances at Ibrox in December vs Hearts and Aberdeen showed what we can do if we set up to allow Garner to play in his physical way. Add to that his last two goals shows that he is capable of taking chances if presented opportunities.

 

If he can can cut out the silly fouls, bookings and play acting, I could definitely see him getting 20 goals.

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.

Term's up for the current board at the end of the summer, isn't it? By the time a new round of voting is arranged (and assuming there's mechanisms in the constitution to allow it: I confess that I just pay my subs and haven't poured over the rule book), is it going to practicable bring them forward by more than a few weeks anyway?

If this is just becoming an issue of personal animosity then they can just get fucking well get on with it. And if it's a dispute about something else they can get on with trying to resolve it through discussion like adults with a job to do.

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.

You clearly are annoyed.

 

Got it in one, Craig.