Fury

I've sent 4 emails never had 1 replied to , on RM there have been guys posted correspondence which shows your points wrong Chris , the recent thread on the meeting with RSC,s again shows how we were lied to , this whole mess is shameful yet you continually brass neck it , the vocal minority won't go away because no one will answer their points or issues , but you know that don't you .

 

 

And as for these regular emails , as I lifetime member I've yet to receive a single one .

Who did you send the emails to? RF? RST? RF and RST don't run Club 1872. You didn't send them to Club 1872 if you haven't had a response. It has it's own website, contact forms, email addresses and admin. All of which has been communicated to members via email and on social media and forums.

I'll keep my own counsel on that thread on RF for the moment but you maybe shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Can you explain how the RSCs were lied to? That is pretty serious accusation given that a club director was present at the meeting so please be specific.

Have you registered on the Club 1872 site? That is what everyone was asked to do and people continue to do on a daily basis. If you haven't received emails then it's because you haven't yet registered.

There is no question that better IT systems were required to communicate with members and that is why we've moved everything to a new website that is fit for purpose.

It's instructive that the vast majority of complaints people have are actually with one or other of the RST and RF. Thousands of fans are having a great experience dealing with Club 1872 and we've received a lot more compliments that negative comments. Interesting that all the negative comments have come via social media and all the positive ones from people prepared to send communication in their own names.

No they aren't, they were questions that were asked before the vote and we were promised answers ; still waiting , meanwhile this merger is going ahead yet no one will answer any questions .

 

Emails get ignored , fans and members are getting blocked on twitter , prominent members of both old organisations have went to ground, as I said it's a shambles and not what we either signed up for or were promised and every member should be asking serious questions.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of pounds in the accounts , this isn't some silly little organisation we are talking about here

That is simply not true. Nobody has been ignored via email. Over 1000 emails have been answered and all are answered promptly. Nobody has been blocked on Twitter. Some were already blocked and many of those have been unblocked despite their behaviour continuing to be abusive. Nobody has gone to ground - they are just busy doing important things rather than dealing with a small group of people on Twitter who are absolutely determined to spread complete nonsense.

It's unfortunate that a vocal group of people - who number no more than about 20-30 but appear to spend an awful lot of time trying to damage Club 1872 - are upset that the merger went ahead but that doesn't mean they are right. If you want to ask some serious questions then send an email and ask. Posting this type of rubbish on a forum makes it look like you are more interested in slinging mud.

Club 1872 has over 10,000 members, 6% of Rangers with the ability to purchase significantly more, significant funds coming in each month and a dedicated group of people working to improve every aspect of previous organisations. That won't happen over night but it is happening and all of that is being communicated to members on a regular basis via social media and email.

Fixed sorry!

Club 1872 Statement on the Daily Record article which tried to shift the blame for the cup final disorder onto Rangers fans. Includes video evidence that the claims made were false and detail of the process we went through with the Daily Record.

http://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-statement-daily-record/

I have 5 Rangers Numbers I could have voted with each one.

And your vote would still only have counted once.

Even if a turnout is announced it would have to be taken with a very large pinch of salt given most people could vote multiple times.

 

However what's done is done and now it will progress , hopefully with some new and truly independent faces aboard instead of celebrities.

Nobody was able to vote multiple times in any one poll.

I seem to have been missing a few emails from the club recently actually. Think I read there might be some sort of issue with their software?

I got an email from Rangers on the Club 1872 proposal and the recent proposed switch to digital renewals. You have to opt in even if you do it online currently because it is giving them permission to just send the renewal form electronically. I'd say you should definitely check with them about emails because you should have got them.

Frankie,

What's been discussed so far is to put out a list of FAQs with answers, along with the proposal again. This will go out with the vote on Monday. It would be the product of the consultation period and hopefully give additional context. Not set it stone yet but it makes sense to me as then people can weigh it all up prior to casting their vote.

Old Chinese proverb

 

Man should say what he see and not jump on bandwagon

I'm not convinced that's a genuine Chinese proverb. I'm going to check on companies house to see if you've set up The Independent Chinese Proverbs Consortium Ltd.

I'm an opinionated barsteward and if there was to be an RST board election and I had similar concerns or saw people with a secret agenda I'd say. The only person I know of regards 'visual/in the limelight' is Chris Graham, who I've commented about on FF and it wasn't all complimentary....but we get away from the real issues Mr North.

 

#Objective

It wasn't? How dare you.....

I think that is a largely unfair statement regarding Chris Graham. He came on here to highlight an inaccuracy posted here by BH. His "fascinating" post was in reference to BH posting a load of rules and guidance which seemed to have little relevance.

 

Surely when someone is posting misinformation about someone else in the online fraternity that person has the right to rebut ? I could be wrong, but I thought that BH first posted the misinformation about Chris attending Board meetings (again, I am going from my limited memory) on this very thread - I would contend Chris Graham therefore had a right to comment in this very same thread.

 

I would argue that BH, as a candidate for the RF Board... shows his candidacy in a very poor light with the stream of allegations he has been making about other candidates - but that very well may be another topic for another day.

Thank you Craig. I've steadfastly refused to comment on the RF elections except for some of the worst examples of people (including some candidates) spreading misinformation. Mr Harris was one obvious example. Buster has addressed some of the others very comprehensively. What people seem to be forgetting is that the conduct of this election potentially reflects not only on RF but on the whole push for fan ownership. It shouldn't, but given the nature of social media it probably will.

My concern is not who ends up on the board of RF - as a non member that is none of my business - it is how that effects the future of fan ownership and representation as a whole. For some reason, at least on social media, this appears to have turned into a competition to see who can make up the most outlandish conspiracy theory about the work that has been ongoing with all the fan groups. If RF members are concerned about what direction that is taking then why not just ask the RF board members who have been involved in discussions along every single step of the way? That would seem preferable to relying on blogs and social media comment full of chinese whispers and, at best half truths.

That said, the process will continue regardless, and hopefully when the proposal comes out it will be received positively by the tens of thousands of fans who are its audience. If a few people who like to shout very loudly on social media are a bit put out then that's a price I suppose we'll all just have to pay.

Dear Mr Graham

 

I hesitate to respond to one such as your good self whose debating and commentating skills are legend but there area number of inaccuracies in your post that I need to correct.

 

Firstly, I did not insinuate anything about you. I made a comment about "at least one of those who is taking part in the merger talks"; if you took that to refer to yourself then that's up to you. I also wonder why you chose to make that post here since the apparently offending post was made on RM?

 

I am sure that members of RF will be indebted to you for your advice (although I have no idea why you as an RST Board member would feel it is appropriate step into this debate) but whilst you are correct that RF is not currently a member of SD, you are quite wrong to suggest that if RF was a member it could opt out of its rules. I believe that as a former main board member of SD and Chair of SDS I have somewhat more experience in these matters than you. I am advised that the question of SD membership has been discussed by RF on a number of occasions and remains a "live" topic.

 

RF was founded with considerable assistance from SDS. Andrew Jenkin of SDS was appointed as an "independent person involved within the process." (AJ). Approximately 20 hours after nominations closed all candidates were sent the Supporters Direct Code of Conduct for Directors and asked to get "in touch if there is anything within this which you feel does not make you suitable to become a Director of Rangers First."

 

The Code of Conduct for Directors states inter alia:

 

6.4 Directors must "avoid conflicts of interest"

 

24.0 Directors should not be in receipt of hospitality ..... that may compromise their position or lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organisation has been compromised.

 

It also states that all Directors must be elected in an election conducted under the organisation's election policy and have complied with that policy.

 

The SD Election Rules Policy states inter alia:

 

4(a) Candidates must not be an employee of Supporters Direct.

 

So in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC

 

In addition, all Members seeking election to the Society’s Board, Council or Advisory bodies will be required to sign a declaration on the nomination form to confirm that they will comply with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT which states inter alia:

 

2. Qualifications for office. To qualify for elected office with Supporters Direct individuals must not be an employee of Supporters Direct.

 

So again in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC

 

and expands on Conflicts of Interest and Prejudicial Interest and in particular stresses that the member "must consider whether 'an ordinary member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts, would think that their personal interest was so significant that it would prejudice their decision on this matter'".

 

5 (e) Declaring Gifts and Hospitality Elected members should not be in receipt of hospitality, goods, services, gifts or any other benefit, that may compromise either their position or that of the organization, or may lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organization or of the member has been compromised.

 

So anyone who is standing in this election has committed themselves to abiding by the SD Code of Conduct for Directors, which implies compliance with the SD Election Rules which in turn require compliance with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT.

 

However, if the election is not being conducted under SD Rules, why were candidates asked to signify compliance with the Code of Conduct for Directors which itself requires compliance with the SD Rules & Election Policy which prohibit conflicts of interest or the acceptance of hospitality? On the other hand if SD Rules do not apply to this election then precisely what rules do apply and where can I find them? These questions are not directed at you, Mr Graham, since you are not a member of RF.

 

Even if no rules at all apply to the election a director must avoid conflicts of interest and must not accept benefits from third parties. As a company director yourself thoise are Statutory Duties with which you will be familiar are you not?

 

Since the entire business of RF is to purchase shares and fund other areas in Rangers FC I would contend that it would be more or less impossible for any person elected to the Board who has a conflict of interest through financial involvement with the Club or is an employee of the Club to take part in any board discussion so it would be impossible for such a person to function as a Director of RF.

Fascinating stuff.

You made the insinuation. The posts you made have been copied and pasted to this site. You failed to quote your entire conversation but I believe quoting parts of rules/conversations etc. is your speciality.

And here you are quoting rules again. All very interesting but still not applicable to this election. I'm amazed you are standing for election without knowing which rules apply to you and your fellow candidates. Especially since you are so experienced in these matters. Perhaps you should have prepared better?

My comments were more with regard to you, your false insinuation about me and your attempt to mislead people by quoting rules that don't apply, rather than the RF elections themselves. I'm not commenting as an RST board member and had you not made your false insinuation about me on RM I probably wouldn't have commented at all. That said, as an organisation for which I have a lot of respect, I think it is important for RF members not to be misled by candidates so I'm glad I was able to point out your mischief making.

Best of luck with your election and best of luck to the other elected board members of RF if you are somehow successful.

Apologies for butting in as I'm not a member of RF but obviously those in charge following this election will be involved in ongoing fan talks so I do have some interest.

Two quick points.

Alan Harris has made an insinuation on RM that I attend board meetings of the club. That is untrue. I have never done so and I'm not sure what he hopes to gain by the insinuation.

Second and more importantly for the purpose of your discussion, Mr Harris is quoting rules in this thread that RF have not, as far as I understand, adopted. Supporters Direct are just running their election. RF are not members of SD as far as I know and even if they were would be under no obligation to adopt their rules. It would appear therefore that Mr Harris is quoting from a rulebook that doesn't actually apply to those standing. I've no idea why he would do that but given the comments I've referenced above it does seem he has some difficulty with accuracy.

I don't really take that well to being threatened.

Checking backing I'm pretty sure it's Marlborough.

I'll see if I can find it. Got a feeling it might have been Marlborough even though they are on shareholder list seperately. Alternatively I'm talking bollocks!

I can't remember now but it was confirmed at the time that one of the funds named is a part of HH.

Hargreave Hale were signatories to the requisition letter.

Well done D'Art. Very important stuff you are doing here.

I believe Traynor also attended a Q&A with Walter Smith prior to the more recent Q&A.

I believe on Monday night that JCS was on Rangers Chat (a call in show on the internet) upset that Traynor had not accepted an invitation to appear on that show. Perhaps the problem is not so much that's he not engaging at all, and more that he's not engaging with who JCS and others think he should be i.e. them?

One of the things that perplexes me about this 'critique' is that the same writer who accuses TRS and myself of doing Traynor's bidding is now criticising me for speaking to the Daily Record - a publication which he acknowledges Traynor has made a point of criticising. So which is it?

For the record (no pun) I spoke to the DR because they were one of the few publications covering the fan meeting and I thought it was important to have some comment on what happened out there for fans who couldn't attend and don't frequent the internet. It was the same reason that TRS tweeted the content of the meeting the night it happened (with permission from the club). I don't make a habit of speaking to the Record and have turned down many previous opportunities to do so. I don't buy it and I'd be delighted if the fans could apply enough commercial pressure to improve the coverage of our club by that paper.

I'm sorry but I think this confuses share ownership and a membership scheme once again.

 

Unless the Club ceases to be a plc, the only way to gain "control" is to buy sufficient shares, ergo the current battle amongst the investors. RST raised £250k when the chips were down, very commendable but doesn't look at what is needed.

 

If you started with a blank sheet of paper, then the German model is what most fans would go for, I'm sure; sadly we don't have a blank sheet of paper.

 

But a large membership base would be powerful and influential and could gain Board seats depending on the size of the membership; ultimately the legal structure of the Club might change but I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

SDM could have given the fans his shares for £1 but the fans didn't have £30M to invest (of course neither did CW, but that is another story).

 

Masterton & Co wrote off all their debt which is why the fans now own Dunfermline; but the bigger the Club the harder it would be to make that happen, can't see people like CG doing that any time soon, can you? Of course Craig Whyte promised..............

Agreed. I think the two things should be kept separate. Many fans have no interest in fan ownership or building up a shareholding but would still want their voice to be heard and to be a member of the club.

I like the idea of a membership scheme but I don't believe it should be implemented until the board is sorted out and we have directors we can actually trust in place. I'd be very concerned that current directors promoting this would be doing so as a sop to the fans and I know they already thought of introducing a half arsed scheme at the start of this season for precisely that reason. This needs to be done properly once the club is secure and the fans can rely on those implementing any scheme.

I think 31.000 + have bought the book but he will say it is 45.000.

Hold your horses - you think 31k people have bought Phil 3 Names book? No chance.

fair enough and a decent answer frank. i have to wonder why any rangers fan wouldnt want something like this. it is a wonderful idea.

Some people so far have said they think we should have other priorities but I think this is the perfect time to push the idea given the proposed redevelopment around the stadium. Let's hope we can get enough people to agree to make sure it has the weight of numbers behind it to make the idea difficult to ignore.