plgsarmy

40 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

 

To clarify, most thought probably yes but that it would be a poisoned chalice for an individual.

Did any of you guys look at her face or were your eyes diverted slightly south?

I thought it was a dirty video?

12 hours ago, Crimson Dynamo said:

Nuno Capucho was a huge disappointment. 

But he did win a medal in Seville?

Sorry but I can’t figure out what CYA is.?

Enjoyed it.

4 hours ago, pete said:

Just open youtube and search for Gersnet podcast. You could have just pressed the link on the podcast section of course.

Lol. I was afraid to do that in case I ended up on the programme?

I was going to listen then realised I didn’t know how?

I’d like to reiterate everything that’s been said. A really difficult time for everyone involved. 

On 30/01/2019 at 11:12, compo said:

Good listen could have had more on Fawlty Towers the major was my favourite 

Maybe a new segment of memories called slapping the square goal post .

You’re right. There must have been a joke with Joe Worrall and Barcelona in the same sentence.

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

You were absolutely fine.

 

I think all our contributors are very good but we can't please everyone.

Thanks. I hope the guy never has to fight in a war and finds out the real meaning of torture.?

A bad man on Twitter said I was torture to listen to.?

On 19/10/2018 at 03:17, Bluedell said:

In the vote that this thread is about. The Board have sneaked it through in the wording without highlighting it. Very underhand. Everything about it is aimed to keep the current board in place and prevent anyone from challenging them. Kim Jong-Un would be very proud. 

Actually Bluedell, I should have clarified this on here. After my e-mail to the Board I was invited to the office to discuss my concerns. I brought that up and apparently a Donating Member does include life members, it’s just a badly worded term that appears in the constitution.

15 minutes ago, BEARGER said:

POLL REMINDER: Club 1872 Election Process

A reminder to members that our current poll will close at midnight on Sunday 14th October. If you have not yet voted then please take the opportunity to do so prior to this time. The original poll email is copied below.   Elections for the Club 1872 boards will take place in the coming weeks. In preparation for this the organisation has undertaken a review of our current election process and the criteria for standing for election. We have reviewed feedback from members and working group volunteers, and looked closely at best practice at a number of other supporter organisations across the UK and beyond.   Club 1872 is an organisation in its infancy and as we evolve, we strive to improve and strengthen our foundations. In its first two years Club 1872 made significant share purchases, becoming the second largest shareholder in RIFC when we purchased shares from MASH Holdings. More recently we invested £1m directly into RIFC through a share issue. An organisation with such a significant shareholding and the potential to participate in decision-making at Rangers should be secure and protected from instability and disruption. It is with this in mind that the Club 1872 board has approached discussions about how future boards should be elected and the length of term they should serve.   We previously wrote to you to indicate that we would poll members on extending the term for future Club 1872 board members. The current one year term is an issue that has been raised by a number of members over the past year. It is also something that was discussed in a meeting with RIFC Chairman, Dave King in connection with an RIFC board place. The current one year term creates challenges in progressing long term plans, and the annual election process causes a significant period of upheaval each year which disrupts crucial work in taking the organisation forward.   Please note: any members’ authorisation to change the length of directors’ terms will only be implemented from the next election and/or affirmation process. Current directors’ terms cannot be extended without either election or affirmation.    The Club 1872 board has also discussed a number of other ideas that could potentially protect and increase the stability of the organisation. In line with our constitution, it is for members to decide whether those changes should be implemented through the adoption of a new Election Schedule.   We would ask you to vote by clicking the link below and logging in to your account - you will then be automatically redirected to the poll.   The poll will close at midnight on Sunday 14th October:     Club 1872

I have sent them an email voicing my concerns. I may put it up later.

How many ordinary fans would know 15 donating members? Apart from the current board that is.

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

To amend directors’ terms to a period of three years?

 

Seems reasonable.

It seems reasonable on a rotating basis but not if there are only going to be elections every three years. Maybe one day there will be an AGM?

57 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

The proposal refers to "donating members". No definition given. Is this an attempt to disenfranchise the likes of Gersnet who have a life membership?

 

"Candidates to stand as Director must be nominated by 15 donating members." - that seems excessive. Seems like an attempt to make it into an old pals club. Candidates should be based on ability and not just those who know loads of "donating members". How would anyone know who donating members are? I'm a life member and have no idea.

 

I'm voting against based on these points.

Excessive, it’s absolutely ridiculous. I’m also assuming that if you are a life member you can’t stand unless you are also contributing monthly.

I made a comment on Twitter that it was wrong to ask for money without giving the names of who was involved. I got told to go and shove a straw up James Blair’s a*se from someone who turned out to be one of the ‘committee’.?

2 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

I am not against safe standing in principal, but I see it as so far down our list of priorities that it shouldnt even be getting discussed for at least another decade. 

 

The "consultation" C1872 say they have had 2300 names of interest for was completely one-sided and offered no chance to oppose it. Can we say then that over 40,000 ST holders are against this if only 2300 people signed up for a note of interest?

 

Lets face it, safe standing doesnt generate an atmosphere, the combination of the opponent, flow of the game, weather conditions etc determine the atmosphere. Always has done, always will do. I stood safely about 3 rows from the back at Fir Park on Saturday and it didnt do one little thing to increase the atmosphere at the ground.

 

Lets get disabled facilities, a capacity increase, stadium infrastructure, the team on the park, a proper manager FFS, all sorted out as well as about 20 other things before we even look at this. 

I entirely agree with you. I’m not sure why this survey was even done. Stewart said at the AGM that the Club would be carrying out a consultation with supporters  and that still seems to be the case so what was the purpose of this?

Just now, pete said:

Was the standing area put to a vote of members?

They only asked for expressions of interest, no agreement to fund it has been reached. I for one don’t think they should.

On 05/03/2018 at 15:04, Bill said:

I've made various contributions to the Rangers cause over the last six years, including buying shares that will never recover their value and donating quite a large sum to the RFFF that someone decided should instead be used to build a facility at Auchenhowie. I even allowed the voting rights of those shares to be used collectively by Vanguardbears on a case by case basis. However, I made a conscious decision not to take part in the RF campaign on a regular basis because over the years I had largely lost faith in the ability of supporters' organisation to deliver on their promises - largely due to the antics of the entirely mis-named Supporters Trust. While I continue to back the notion of supporter participation and would like nothing more than to see more shares in the hands of supporters, nothing I've seen in C1872 has changed my mind.

 

I would be delighted to buy more shares in any future share issue, so long as it was my money buying my shares at my risk and under my control. However, like many other like-minded fans, the board won't afford me that option and I refuse to be railroaded into using my cash to buy shares that someone else will own and have decision-making rights over.

 

It's a bit rich to see aspersions cast on non-participants after the conduct displayed by supporters' organisations over the years. It's not apathy, some of us just have long memories. If C1872 is for you then good luck with it but please leave it at that.

 

 

I’d love to know which antics you are talking about

22 hours ago, pete said:

I have a problem with the word "Special Project." There is no easier way to see money syphoned off as using the words Special Project. That covers a huge grey area.

Pete, there is no such thing as ‘Special’ Projects, it’s just projects and all are subject to Member approval. Also, members can choose where they want their money to do.

19 hours ago, craig said:

pete's eyes don't work too well Frankie

 

I would be happy to contribute as an overseas fan.... "Bear in Bermuda"

I would be willing to come over to Bermuda to interview you, all expenses paid of course ?