Jump to content

 

 

ThatsWhyWeirChamps

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    90

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ThatsWhyWeirChamps

  1. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    Yes. Lots.
  2. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    A stance I'd be happy for everyone to adopt. The information I posted up there was communicated by two RST board members, for clarity. I was not, and am not, suggesting the RST are supporting it - only that they will be along to listen to the presentation; which is all that's been asked of anyone.
  3. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    I can assure people that I have not been deceitful. I have tried my best to avoid going over things, because there's really no way for it to go but become tit-for-tat. This is a personal issue masquerading as a moral or ethical one. The guys involved did resign from the RST, but the reason they resigned had nothing to do with backstabbing or deceiving the RST. I can't really go into any more detail than that without seeming like I'm shit-stirring. I only hope that people take their views on this from the RST stance as opposed to that of a former board member. The RST are not opposed to the meeting taking place and will be attending the meeting with the same open mind that every other fan who has been invited will be asked to do.
  4. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    Is this like an ex-RST board member retirment community then that fate has had me stumble upon?
  5. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    I don't think that's the issue, I think that fan ownership will only be delivered by a single-purpose vehicle. The Trust continues to represent its members on the day-to-day issues, like the Club's PR man, as an example, and that's fine, but perhaps that approach won't unite enough fans behind it to be successful enough on the fan owership front? That's basically the premise of the presentation. No bad words to be had about the Trust, as I say, I think fans should be represented on those issues too - but perhaps the two-pronged approach just isn't viable? Due to other more personal issues Mark is taking a hard line against it. That's perfectly fine, all that's asked is that you look at what is proposed with an open mind and decide if that sounds achievable. If not, we continue as is.
  6. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    It is though. The views of the Rangers community are being sought. That doesn't mean it's competition for the Trust or the formation of a new fans group. It's a proposal to bang heads, get all fans together and working towards one common goal. If it doesn't get the support initially from all sections then it won't be progressed. Mark is trying to make this look like some anti-Trust exercise when that isn't the case. I continue to be a member of the RST - I believe in it, and I think the people on board are capable of representing my views, but I think we have to explore fresh ways to bring more of the support to fan ownership.
  7. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    "Due to other circumstances, we're now in a position where the RST can't even deliver the Buy Rangers scheme - it won't and can't meet compliance procedures." "It isn't an allegation, mate, and it isn't supposed to be a sleight either. The author of Buy Rangers is no longer on the board, and someone of his expertise is required to make sure it meets the compliance procedures on an ongoing basis. I don't possess those skills and neither does anyone else left on the RST board. I haven't a clue about the intricacies of FCA mutual rules - it's complicated business." "I don't know. Perhaps they'll seek a new compliance officer? " That's what I said. If you take from that that Buy Rangers isn't compliant then I can only apologise, but that's not what I said. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but the purpose of it was to highlight that the Trust have lost lots of talent over this shitty situation. As I said, emotions can get the better of you when you;re having your integrity questioned.
  8. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    If you go back to my previous post, you'll see I amended it. The point remains the same.
  9. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    I didn't say Buy Rangers is non-compliant. The thread is still there for anyone who wants to go and see. The Compliance Officer resigned. Therefore, as things stand and on an ongoing basis the scheme can't and won't meet compliance procedures. That's a fact. Perhaps the Trust have since appointed a new Compliance Officer, and hopefully they have, but that was the truth when I said it. It wasn't supposed to be about criticising Buy Rangers either, but I suppose getting worked up when someone is smearing you on a public forum can perhaps be excused. Since then I've been called a liar, had my moral fibre questioned, been called deceitful and many other wretched insults from a bitter man who seems to blame other people for his departure from the Trust.
  10. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/383907213938790400 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/386398241035943936 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/386974001509044224 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/385894985712672768 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/385109911757410304 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/383901288460992513 Was that part of the perfectly acceptable policy which 3 experts commented on?
  11. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    The Celtic Trust aren't SD members.
  12. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    Disingenious? Why was there no denial that the RST twitter frequently tweeted #SpivsOut at the time? Don't have them to hand anymore, but there were statistics which had the number of times it was mentioned and you didn't challenge them any of the times it was mentioned. We both know it happened, to claim otherwise IS disingenious. That wasn't supposed to be a dig at you either, but it's fact that there was debate on that issue between board members several times. If you'd never done that and the statistics which were used were false you could easily have said so. I don't think I said I supported Paul Goodwin as spokesman either. But I supported the single-issue policy. And lying on FF on Saturday? That's a big accusation. About what exactly? EDIT: My apologies, it wasn't #SpivsOut - it was #SackTheBoard
  13. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    I know Paul, and have worked with him in the fan ownership issue. He's a good guy and his organisation will help where they can, who he supports is irrelevant to me personally. No job is worth forcing yourself to watch Partick Thistle over and over, in any case! SD are dedicated to delivering community ownership, it's their ultimate purpose, and will work with any group who has an idea or wish to implement it. They are not suggesting a competing fans group. Drew is right to have doubts about it - all of us should - but the idea is worth an airing and then we can all decide for ourselves. His point about groups not being consulted - that's what the meeting is for. Drew and all groups have had people invited.
  14. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    Spot on.
  15. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    Anonymous? I'm sure it's absolutely nothing to do with the personal slurs and lies being perpetuated by Mark on Follow Follow. Nothing at all.
  16. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    The best person to judge that will be yourself! I believe there is a plan to hold further meetings if there is a positive reception to this one, hopefully encompassing a wider audience and greater participation.
  17. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    A controlling stake doesn't have to be 50%+1. The reality is that the group the Easdales represent have a controlling influence with just over 25%, that's due to the small stake that the majority of our shareholders have. It's different now to when it was originally framed under SDM. As I said a few pages back, as little as 5% held by an organised block can hold the board to account and start to exert influence. You can requisition an EGM, circulate a statement (both written, and in our case, probably on the website), you can propose a director, propose any sort of resolution really. 5% would probably have been enough for fans to bang heads together prior to the AGM too.
  18. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    You're asking questions I'm unable to answer. Supporters Direct are hosting a meeting, and presenting the model which has been successful at several other clubs across Scotland. If you're asking whether I believe fans should keep working at it until we get it right, then yes - definitely.
  19. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    Click on that image.
  20. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    "The Rangers Supporters Trust is a supporter's group with 3 aims: wider share ownership supporter representation & defending the reputation of the Gers family." Which was the entire purpose of the proposal. I'm not going to say it's wrong to comment on the issues it does, I just don't think it helps when trying to unite fans behind fan ownership. How can you call the board spivs on Twitter and go in to meet them the following day to debate issues with them? (as an extreme example)
  21. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    You don't have to to click it and see my full-name!
  22. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    Firstly, I'm not anonymous, and secondly, I haven't done that.
  23. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    Not planning on getting into a slanging match, but if the Trust is already a single-issue entity, why does it comment on issues which aren't about fan ownership? Why did a vote on a proposal which would have implemented a policy on that fail? I think you should double-check the 3 stated aims of the RST if you believe it is a single-issue entity. It clearly isn't.
  24. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    No, my identity isn't a secret. My Twitter is linked to my profile.
  25. ThatsWhyWeirChamps
    It was part of a proposal to update the Trust's PR/Comms policy. It was suggested that the Trust become a single-issue entity and that the Trust don't have a spokesman - they simply allow Paul Goodwin/SD to promote the issues. The benefits, it was suggested, was that he couldn't be drawn on things like whether the Easdales are good or bad and whether Jack Irvine is good or bad - his only message would be fan ownership. He would also be free to sit in the BBC studio and promote fan ownership of Rangers and go on Clyde, whereas a Rangers fan would lose credibility if he did it. It was outvoted, democratically, but it seems to have got Mark's goat. Not sure why.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.