BrahimHemdani

I swear the guy sitting next to me is going to have a heart attack the next time he gets caught in possession or makes a forward pass to the opposition. To be fair he hates Zenadine Law as well.

Excellent answer, thanks for taking the time.

I have asked the question and will publish any answer I get. Thank you for your other comments. I have been on all sides of this fence indeed if a fence had three sides then I've been on them; and I am 100% in favour of a unified fans organisation provided it is totally independent from then Club, my fear, perhaps not very well expressed, is that it is not. I wish we could start with a blank sheet of paper but unfortunately we cannot.

I'm sorry but I can't reveal my source at least not for the moment. What I will say is that it is my understanding that Mr Stenhouse was "imposed" on the talks and I for one am concerned that at least two people, Alan Fraser and Malcolm Stenhouse, who are known associates/friends of Mr Gilligan are involved when they have no obvious locus. If you want me to spell out my concern it is that the Club are seeking to mould the merged group to their liking. As you rightly point out those (at least those known to me) involved in the talks are all experienced people and well capable of coming up with a working model without outside assistance.

I agree with that because most only represent a very small number of people.

I tried to invoke the Constitution unsuccessfully when the election for office bearers was first delayed then run contrary to the rules laid down and was removed from the board before the election was run leaving only one candidate for Secretary of the Board who was then returned unopposed. Make that of it what you will.

That's true the circumstances are completely different but there is a remarkable comparison in some aspects e.g. the Club imposing the Constitution of the RFB and the Club appointing a consultant to "advise" on the merger proposals.

I am trying to find out if the merger and the proposed unified board is truly independent of the Club. NB: I have corrected the name of the consultant at post #53.

As I remarked earlier, Halliday did not look near as comfortable or effective further forward as has done in his hitherto deep lying role.

I'm not a 100% sure of this and don't have time to check but is it not the case that MW has made two substitutions on are about the 60th minute in virtually every recent match, save one when they were about 5-10 minutes later? Would you not agree that there are occasions when only one or no substitutions are required and that making substitutions just for the sake of giving some players "game time" or "squad rotation" might disrupt the Plan and/or upset the rhythm of the team and thus be counter-productive?

Apparently there was a high level meeting at Ibrox towards the end of last week attended by representatives of at least two Rangers fans' web forums. Can anyone say if Gersnet was invited or attended and if so what was on the agenda?

Can you confirm that a former colleague of John Gilligan at Tennents, Malcolm Stenhouse, https://www.linkedin.com/in/malcolm-stenhouse-8338282 has been appointed by the Club as a consultant to advise on the merger, what part Ross Hendry is playing in these matters and who is remunerating them for their services?

I may be wrong but I believe this is the first time a Club has been charged let alone found guilty of breaches of the "unacceptable conduct" rules so it has to be seen as a step forward. The argument on the 18 month deferral will be that the intention is to ensure that Motherwell take the appropriate action in future rather than penalising them on this occasion. (I'm not saying I agree with that; I think a mixture of punishment and corrective action might have been more appropriate.) Hitherto Clubs have always been able to rely on the "reasonably practicable" defence and the fact that Motherwell failed that test in several areas is surprising but it may also indicate that a higher standard of test is now being applied. However, the only real solution is the imposition of strict liability which would force Clubs to accept their responsibilities in this area or face much more stringent penalties.

I think you make a good point about speaking my mind. I raised numerous issues that were brought to me by "away fans" and no doubt that contributed to my removal. The Chief Executive at the time was Graham Wallace not Derek Llambias, so my opinion of the work he was doing is irrelevant. But you are right also to draw attention to the fact that it was he who shut down the RFB.

And whilst we're about it, you say nothing of the manner in which the Club removed me from the RFB, without any opportunity to defend myself, contrary to all the rules of natural justice.

The candidates were selected based on their CV's, by an independent panel chaired by the unimpeachable Rev MacQuarrie. There were three candidates in my section of the ballot, the other two being Supporters Club officials. I might also add that I was elected despite a high profile campaign against me organsied by a certain well known website.

Thank you for that. I have no idea the identity of anyone who voted for me (save for a handful of friends) except to say that in my category of "away fans", I polled 49% of the votes in a three person race.

That is complete and utter nonsense. I was elected to the RFB in an open and fair election.

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your argument I take the view that members of individual groups have a right to know who is representing them at these discussions. There may be more truth in your last point than you imagine.

I would agree with you to the extent that I think that the members of each group should know who is representing them at these discussions and the individual groups should publicise that information. I am a member of RF and I will be making my opinion known.

The Club are aleady involved in the formation of the unified Board.

I am 100% in support of a unified fans' board provided it is truly independent of the Club.

That's more or less exactly what was said about the Rangers Fans' Board.

Not a surprise that Graham and Gough are in the same picture. It would appear they are being lined up for places on the unified Fans' Board.

I have named all the people who I have been told are involved. I am not involved and I don't know if the information I have been given is correct nor do I know any other names. It would appear from your other posts on this subject that are directly involved, so you would know who else is involved. I would think the biggest concern would be the involvement of the Club in what is supposed to be an independent Fans' Board, which is exactly what happened last time.