WATP_Greg

Word. I went on Follow Follow for the first time since June 2012 tonight, that's one depressing thread. I can't get over how people talk to each other there. The vitriol over what seems to be fairly trivial stuff just baffles me.

I don't really get it to be honest. But it is what it is - I think Rangers First is a fantastic idea so I will be badgering everyone I speak to about it.

I think it is right to question but it does get on my nerves when someone repeats the same point day after day no matter how many times you answer.

Could be some RST members genuinely believe that others have behaved in a underhand manner. Its not like they are attacking other fans because their partners are RC's or smearing the guys who run the Founders Trail is it?

They may believe it but it doesn't make it true and it doesn't justify their actions imo - though to be fair the RST board have not said anything against Rangers First.

I joined the RST in Autumn last year - I am in Rangers First. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I understand what you mean , I was myself initially very sceptical thats why I decided on the life membership plus the £5 monthly donation instead of paying out £whatever every month , as an aside though there is virtually no mention on any other forum bar this one , I posted a thread on FF about it today and it was gone in 4 minutes , how can we really expect success when we continually hate at each other ./

 

The thread on the supporters direct thread on FF is an absolute disgrace , how Marshall1973??? kept his cool for so long amazed me.

I think Rangers First deserves its own thread on there but it won't get one at the moment - shame but it is not a disaster imo.

I am pleased with the response on day one with little promotion other than word-of-mouth, I keep saying this but I think there is something in this

Yourself and your dad should be commended for the way you conduct yourselves because I've seen you guys come under pretty heavy fire on other forums and you've behaved almost impeccably throughout.

 

You're both a credit to your pub, the RangersFirst CIC initiative and to our Club's support in general.

Cheers mate, not entirely sure what to do with praise

I honestly believe that Rangers First has the makings of something special. But we need to make sure it is transparent and robust so all constructive criticism should be welcomed - at the end of the day we all love the club.

All that being said the site is live now so hopefully some of the questions can be answered there and everyone can get a clear opinion of what RF is about.

I responded to what was written by someone who was present at the meeting.

 

From what was said in the contentious post, he thought that someone else in the room felt as he did.

 

You may not have heard it, or maybe he misheard it, but in the post in question, which provoked a direct response from me, it is startlingly clear:

 

"In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good."

 

That contribution fully merited the response that it got. I'll leave it to you and others to decide what was and wasn't said, but this was how one person believed it to be, and when he posted his view here, it needed to be highlighted.

 

And it has been.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I appreciate the timing of your response - I have no real issue with you reacting like that.

My only concern is that I make it clear that the views you reacted to do not represent the views of Rangers First or any BuyRangers members that will work with RF.

I think I have done that - I would hope that you ensure that the individuals you reported this information too will have the full facts at their disposal now as we do not need misinformation spread about RF or anyone else. We are all in this together in my eyes

A personal opinion is nothing more than a personal opinion though and as far as I know BH represents neither RangersFirst or Gersnet in any official capacity. If someone wants to go to certain meetings and post reports here, then that's their prerogative. It might be an idea if meeting attendees were asked to keep information as brief as possible until such time as official minutes of the meetings are released to the public, but that's another matter.

As transparency is one of the key tenets of RF I think allowing the minutes to be posted before the 'official' minutes is not a great concern. However, the fact that the posting of this minutes has granted the individual some perceived authority is mildly concerning. As long as it is made clear that any views are personal and not representative of RF then we should be fine and I believe we have now gotten to that point

I'm sorry but I don't understand as, not knowing your interest in this debate, I'm not sure of your intentions.

 

To me it looks as if you're involved with BR scheme (or the RST) somehow and are upset at the way the CIC scheme developed. I can understand that as the background to this issue is still open to debate.

 

However, without knowing the full facts, it's very difficult for anyone to form an opinion either way. Mark and Rab throwing tomatoes at each other on FF doesn't really count for worthwhile debate on that front.

 

Ergo, when we do see what appears to be a desperate attempt to find offence/fault with the CIC scheme administrators it just looks like more handbags.

 

It would be a massive understand to say the rest of the RFC support is merely disappointed with such.

To be fair to my dad (Rab) - I think his patience was severly tested and broken on that thread over there. There was little intention to debate Rangers First from some on there IMO

Which I continue to believe since the thread title still doesn't include 'Rangers First'. But that is an aside.

I agree with your point that it seems like some individuals are scouring for something with which to use against RF - I would ask that any of us in The Rangers Community try and enter into debate in an honest manner - we all want the same thing after all.

Remember what was said:

 

"In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good."

 

This suggests that the writer has his own opinion, which he is of course entitled to, but that someone else present in the room holds the same view - 'as was suggested last night'.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

You can quote his opinion as much as you like, but it is still his opinion and not representative of Rangers First.

I know what has been said at the meetings because I have been to them all.

I have countered his assertions that someone else in the room had the same thoughts - I didn't hear that. Please read the posts I have made if you seek elaboration on that topic.

I can't be clearer

Believe me, Zappa, when I informed others of the words in question here, their replies, unlike my post, we're completely unprintable.

 

His opinion, as far as I can see, still stands, and although it appears to be inconvenient for others who have bought into the scheme, it is a view that people will not easily forget or ignore, and nor should they.

 

Mending fences and building bridges will not happen when perceptions such as this from one close to, and indeed part of, the scheme see the light of day.

 

It may be the view of one person, but when that person is the one bringing updates on meetings to this website, it simply cannot be glossed over or ignored.

I'm sorry to disagree with you but this is purely the views on one individual on here who chose to take their own minutes at the meeting and publicise them - His opinion is allowed to stand as it is his opinion. That does not mean that it is representative of Rangers First - It is not. Mr Harris has no special position at Rangers First. I can't be clearer

I have been present at every meeting of Rangers First - the issue that you have a problem with does not exist. You are merely creating a straw man. I repeat this is not an issue.

I would also hope that you inform those whom you told that that is not the view of Rangers First and is just the view of one individual. We, as a support, have no need to spread misinformation about any groups as far as I can see.

A very inflammatory an ill judged statement IMHO. But mistakes happen from time to time.

I don't think it represents the views of Rangers First as a collective and hopefully it will not be held against RF or indeed Mr Hemdani

This new scheme has been sold as a benign entity, an alternative means of striving for fan ownership, another model to try alongside BuyRangers, and then after a meeting of the main players, this assertion was boldly put:

 

"In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good."

 

Take out "as was suggested last night" and you are left with the crux:

 

In any event, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good.

 

This is the future choice for BuyRangers then, stated by someone with an inside track into what is going on at Rangersfirst.

 

Does it sound conciliatory? Does it imply cooperation? Or does it come across as empire building and threatening?

 

My answer to those remarks was emphatic and entirely appropriate after reading such a provocative statement.

 

The remarks shone a light into the dark recesses of the Rangersfirst scheme, and demonstrated that those who have serious doubts about it are absolutely right to be concerned.

I have answered several times that this was Mr Hemdani's own personal opinion - That is not anything from Rangers First.

Mr Hemdani is one of circa 50 people at each meetings - he has no special position and is allowed his own opinion - I am disappointed that you cannot separate that from Rangers First as a whole.

Rangers First and BuyRangers are separate entities and will continue to be so with no intention of that changing in the future - this is not a coup.

I would however, hope that both shareholder bases could work together in the future to work to our mutual aim of creating a better Rangers

How many Directors will there be ?

 

Will their be any money paid to the Directors ?

 

Any discussion about expenses ?

There has been the suggestion put forward at the meeting that no directors should be paid. I am of agreement with that as were the majority of nodding heads within the room.

Everyone that has carried out work so far has done so on a volunteer basis and any financial losses have come out of their own pocket. I for one hope that this continues. I think it is important in establishing trust with the wider Rangers Support that no one fan is making money from Rangers First.

We are all in it together for the betterment of Rangers Football Club.

The number of directors will be decided in due course.

I have to be honest (well I am always honest) and say that that was not the comment to which I was refering and for the avoidance of doubt I am not saying it was not said. But the comment I heard came during a discussion in the second half of the meeting when there was a reference to shares being transferred into the CIC in lieu of the £500 Life Membership. At the time I took it as aserious suggestion but it may well have been a flippant or sarcastic comment and I repeat it was not discussed.

The conversation you refer to was Shares in Rangers FC (bought at the IPO, or through brokers) being used to offset the lifetime membership fee. Personally I thought this was a brilliant idea. We have committed to donating all but two of our £1000 worth of IPO shares to Rangers First and will also be paying the full life membership fee.

BuyRangers wasn't mentioned at all to my recollection at this point, and I don't that is possible even if any BuyRangers member wanted to do. For the avoidance of doubt this idea was not brought up. So can we just leave it there - there is no point in antagonising other Rangers Fans

It is indeed your personal opinion, Brahim, and from reading your posts about this group, you seem to be one of its heavy hitters and probably more experienced in matters of this nature than some of the others.

 

That's why your opinion is taken so seriously. You are on the inside looking out. You are a credible part of it.

There is no heavy hitters in our group - we are all part of the collective. However, our own personal opinions should be taken as such.

That suggestion to me is simply non of Rangers First's business - we have no right discussing what BuyRangers or anyone else does with their shares or their assets - that is their business.

I am astonished at the following words which were posted earlier in the thread:

 

"In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good."

 

Here it is for all to see; a less than diplomatic approach, an implication that the one true faith has been discovered, and a casual dismissal of the alternative.

 

Unity? This is unity on Rangersfirst terms. Let's work together, they say, but what respectable organisation would work with a so-called partner grouping that is at ease displaying what some might perceive to be a rather high and mighty attitude?

 

The illuminating words above have let the cat out the bag. They have given credence to Rangersfirst doubters and ammunition to Rangersfirst enemies.

 

It's there in black and white - BuyRangers will have to consider whether to transfer its holding to this new group - for the greater good.

 

Let me respond.

 

It'll be a cold, cold day in hell before my share in BuyRangers comes within a million miles of Rangersfirst's clutching mittens.

Look I've had a long think about this - the only comment that even came close was one from my Dad - He was sitting next to Christine and said something along the lines of 'using the shares together' - I know for a fact he was talking about both Buy Rangers and Rangers First utilising their combined voting power to vote together for the benefit of fans. There was no reference about taking over anyone's shares.

Its a bit sad that this point is being misinterpreted this way as it is the opposite of the point that was being made. We should all work together for the benefit of the support

Thats the only thing I can even think that was close - it wasn't discussed or elaborated on.

I suspect he means the six ex-RST Board members who have been working on this for months, not you Greg.

I know who he means - I have discussed this long enough now. The point is that Rangers First is not the small band of former RST board members that some would portray it as. There are far more people like myself who have no history with anyone (although I did join the RST a short while ago). I think it should be accepted that there are people who come from different backgrounds who have came to work together on this. The lad Ian for instance who worked on his own scheme for months and donated the name is no less important than some of the Former RST board members. I feel that myself and my family have had an impact on this. I think Rangers First is worth more respect than that - it is from a wide variety of Rangers Supporters encompassing a broad spectrum of the support from what I can see.

Thats how I feel at least - RF can make a difference to my club and I am confident it will be a success

Every single meeting so far has been governed by consensus. There has been plenty of opprtunity to raise any concerns for all of us. I initially favoured the Rangers.coop name, but through discussion in the room was happy with how we progressed.

 

I'm sure if the name proposed is really a major issue, it can be changed.

 

To give a bit of background to the name, similar to Rangers First being owned by the chap Ian and kindly donated, the name Club 1872 is also independently owned by someone who wishes it to be used. If it is tainted by being proposed before, then it's easily changed. Raise it at the next members meeting and explain it to the room, I'd be willing to wager that most people will see it as petty though.

 

As for James Blair. He completed the skills audit just like everyone else at the meeting. He's done work with SD before. Partner at a respected law firm. What's the issue?

That is the question I would like to ask those criticising - What is the issue? If it a legitimate concern that should be addressed then by all means lets address it - we have to get this right. Now is the time, this our shot, our moment and we have to capture it (to paraphrase Eminem) - The zeitgeist is changing amongst our support. This opportunity will only come once and I believe we can make a difference.

As a BuyRangers member I would politely tell those involved with RangersFirst to gtf and leave the actual BuyRangers members to decide what to do with our shares. RangersFirst have no say at all over it and neither to SDS. It is massive arrogance from anyone to assume the BuyRangers members would want to do this.

Can I just point out that Mr Hemdani was speaking on his own behalf and his views do not necessarily represent the views of Rangers First (as neither do mine) - No one is telling you what to do with your shares and neither should they.

As an RST member I will be voting no to giving shares to people who've acted less than honest to the RST. Terrible idea.

You have not been asked to vote on anything that I am aware of. If you don't wish to be a part of Rangers First then don't be - it is a personal decision- I would expect you to buy into BuyRangers and I commend you for seeking greater fan influence at the club.

I have not been 'less than honest' with the RST and I am a member of Rangers First. Everything since day one of the meetings is thoroughly documented on the minutes - The first meeting in The Louden is where Rangers First began, it was named at the second meeting and launched to the members present at the fourth. I am entirely comfortable with Rangers First and that is why I have committed my money and offered my shares to them. I believe this can work and that it will be for the benefit of the Support at large and the club in the long term.

Maybe it's just me, but i see all these schemes being doomed to failure. The infighting continues and the cliques still exist on all 'sides'. Very sad that individual egos and agendas will actually lead any good to failure.

I think a key part of The Rangers First meetings have been discussions on how those with egos will be pushed aside - we are all cogs in a much larger machine. If everyone does a small amount then RF will be successful. It must also be upfront and transparent in order to obtain the trust of the support at large and be a success. I am entirely confident that this is the route that we are going down (now that I have joined I can say we )

Who suggested that nonsense?

 

I don't even see the point in discussing that as it's only likely to inflame the situation even further and I'd imagine that many BuyRangers contributors would be completely opposed to the notion.

 

The BuyRangers and RangersFirst fan ownership vehicles can easily run in parallel and we've already seen evidence to suggest that the competition is healthy.

 

The two groups should be able to work together for the greater good simply by proxy voting, but the notion of the RST transferring it's BuyRangers holdings in the company to the CIC is absolutely ludicrous.

I think they will be run in parallel - I agree competition is good as it drives innovation.

I do foresee that on many big issues both BuyRangers and Rangers First will end up voting together as they both have the supporters interests at heart.

Sorry to be pedantic, it's just the way I am; but there was never any suggestion that the CIC be named Rangers Coop. At the second meeting, the domain http://www.rangers.coop was proposed as it had been registered by SD. The name Rangersfirst.org was then offered by the gentleman who owned it and that was adopted.

 

16 people taking £500 life memberships on the night is an incredible start and shows the potential that exists.

I'm sorry to disagree but Richard proposed the name 'Rangers COOP' including the URL above - Ian then countered with Rangers First as he had the name in mind for his own membership scheme that he had been investigating for several months on his own. It was then through discussion, unanimously decided that Rangers First would be chosen. I for one am happy with the name 'Rangers First' as I feel it captures the mood of the meeting succinctly.

I am impressed with the level of uptake - that is not including the two memberships that my family intend to obtain. There is something in this Rangers First scheme - of that I am positive

I think everyone just needs to calm down , if this scheme isnt for you then there's the buyrangers one , the in fighting needs to stop now

As long as you do something to help put the club first then thats great. I will say I have heard nothing negative from any of the Rangers First lads and girls about any other fans groups or their schemes. Choose what you think is right for you

I don't recall any vote last night Greg. Perhaps it happened when I was out for a cigarette. All I remember is being told it was happening.

The way I see it is the point was raised and no one objected, same as we have for other points - If you remember the name Rangers Coop was suggested and we decided against it as a group and chose Rangers First unanimously. If you had any concerns you should have raised it last night imo Thats what we are all there for - talk it out and come up with what we think is best. We are only there to help the club in the long term.

infact, Club 1872 was well received - 16 people have signed up for it already last night. Its not bad in a meeting with 54 people.

It was voted for last night - you were there?

Only people that comfortable with it will give over their money. We are confident in the scheme (and the people who are involved). We as a family have taken up 3 memberships at £18.72 and we have indicated that we are going to donate all but of our shares bought at the IPO for £1000 and we will take up 2 (possibly 3) of the life memberships for Club 1872.

The way I see it is: If you don't like it don't buy in. I trust Rangers First