Albertz1872

Email sent to Club:

We refer to your letter dated 26 February 2015 in which you ‘note that the Elected Representatives have created and are administering a Facebook page purportedly on behalf of the RFB. The RFB has no permission of the Club to publish a Facebook page on behalf of the RFB. Please ensure that the Facebook page is removed by 6pm [today], failing which the Club will have no option but to take the necessary Court action against you and your fellow Elected Representatives to have the Facebook page removed.’

1. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no ‘purportedly’ about the Facebook page being on behalf of the RFB. We assure you it absolutely is.

2. The RFB, in creating the Facebook page, relied on the ‘Communications – Points for Consideration by Fans Board’ document issued by the Club to the RFB. The document states that ‘t is recommended that a single rangersfansboard Facebook page is established…’ On the recommendation of the Club therefore, the RFB created a Facebook page. Please advise and provide the documentary evidence where the Club informed the RFB that permission was required.

3. ‘[N]ecessary court action’ requires some breach a court may address. Please advise upon what breach you shall be relying in submitting any application to a court to afford us an opportunity to respond or comply. As you are aware, a court would take a very dim view on attempted litigation if you fail to meet this reasonable request.

Kind regards,

RFB

If nothing else, it's good sport.

 

KUTGW!

It's keeping me mildly entertained as I trudge my way through rather more mundane contract amendments...!

Tom Johnstone is a lawyer but I don't see where the Constitution requires to be ratified and absent any debate to the contrary I would imagine they would be held to have been working to or under it. It was imposed at the outset and in any event 23.1 gives them the power to amend it at any time.

 

I was going to propose a Constitution sub committee to review it but that was never formed and wouldn't be relevant now anyway.

I appreciate that position and if I were on their side that's what I'd argue. However that's the point: legal argument.

Let's see if we can keep chipping away at them.