plgsarmy

I got notification that I have one through the CCCS.

Will the site be running a poll re voting?

I would think the negotiators or people setting it up would need all the facts so I am not sure that they shouldn't have all the facts and figures.

Numbers are available but not names for the reason that Bluedell has stated.

Their proposal is that those with a life membership in either or both existing organisations retain their life membership in the new body, is it not?

 

It's a one member, one vote situation so it wouldn't be fair for you to have 2 votes. However I can understand your position.

 

Perhaps a fair solution would be for the new body to refund your RST life membership, but I'm suggesting that without any idea of the potential cost.

I'd need to have a look at the list of life members of both organisations and see the number of duplicates before I could assess that. No one has both lists at the moment. However, if a member approached us to request a refund it could be considered but I'd probably deduct £10 membership fee for every year they've been a life member. That could be a solution.

Going by my own experiences I feel it's imperative that there is representation on Club 1872 as without the clout of a larger group we really are utterly powerless.

 

I'm not saying any rep must themselves be disabled however they must be fully aware of the issues involved and have first hand experience, be that as a carer, a parent etc.

 

I agree with BlueMazza that it's preferable to present matters directly rather than through a third party.

It was my understanding that there is already a group representing disabled fans that meet monthly with the Club to discuss all their issues and looking for ways to improve facilities. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry.

I thought he was excellent today apart from his shooting.

In that case it's an easy question to answer , how many members contribute to buy rangers

BR was set up in a different way from Gersave but let's just say that the figure that BH gave isn't far off. That would make sense as I know who it came from. It's just over 1100.

I think someone didn't fully understand the accounting of it. the share capital disclosed in the accounts would show you the number of members at the balance sheet date.

 

 

There must have been irregularity if the Gersave cash could not be tied into records and by you saying that they could not be reconciled is a serious allegation. I'm surprised that the rules were redrafted to allow for this rather than the board taking steps to ensure that the cash was reconciled.

The key phrase is 'to my knowledge'. The auditors got the Gersave bank statements and a bank reconciliation was done. I kept a spreadsheet which was updated monthly showing exactly how much each person contributed.

I disagree Craig, i think plgsarmy words were direct and what was her true feelings. The merger will be pushed through, the board want it and the support want it imho.

 

What remains to be seen though is, will the supporters representatives of the joint group, when negotiating on our behalf, will they stoutly defend the supporters interest's or meekly fall in line with what the club wants?

 

That will be the true test of the groups independence.

I'm on here as an individual and not representing the RST. The view I gave was my own partly but if four organisations' members vote for it and one doesn't then I think it will go ahead and will be popular with the wider support. The proposal will be available as soon as it's ready. Do people really expect me to leak details?

I would like to pay tribute to Richard Scott who was unsuccessful in the election.

 

Richard has played a leading role in establishing RF over the past year and I believe that his wise counsel and boundless enthusiasm for the project will be a loss to the Board.

Thanks for confirming what I suspected.

I think we know that Christine and it applies equally to both schemes (now that we know that RF has 9,000 not 14,000 contributors).

 

Then why don't you state the number who bought shares outright and the number of regular contributors, rather than continuing to obfuscate the issue?

Because it pisses you off when I don't Alan.

How many pay into the RST scheme christine

Bruce, it's nowhere near that as I'm sure you know. A lot of people bought Community Shares outright rather than paid them up. I know you thought I was having a dig at RF by saying that but I wasn't. It's inevitable that people will drop off in these things because a great number didn't join up because they had a great belief in fan ownership. It was because many of them felt helpless around January last year and wanted to help get rid of the corrupt board and help the club get back to where we belong. Hence the reason to look at a group that has other options rather than shareholding.

13,954 to be precise.

That's not correct. It's under 9,000 now.

In fairness Andy, plgsarmy knows most of the movers & shakers, has maybe been communicating with some RF people (re - the merger proposals) and also might have an insight on certain matters which none of us do, so I'm not sure why she should stay away from commenting on this type of thread. It's an open forum, so folk are entitled to comment no matter whether any of us agree with them or not.

Thanks Zappa. In addition I have experience of the MO of some of those standing who have a history of throwing their toys out the pram if they don't get their own way.

Ah..there goes my question about conflicts of interest!

 

In that case, though, I don't think it's good form for RST associated people/members to be weighing in on a RF election thread.

Nobody on here plays for Rangers, it doesn't stop them having an opinion.

plgsarmy, are you in RF as well as the RST?

No I'm not.

I suppose the question is who did he discuss it with?

[/b]

 

Why does it amuse you , and yes it is more flexible than just buying shares , but then you already knew that didn't you

It amuses me because certain people who used it as a selling point are now saying it should be 95% spent on shares.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

I don't get the relevance of your quote.

What's Plan B if RF members say No?

I assume they will remain as a separate group.

Can you give me the break down of how many reps for each group?

Three from RST, three from RF, two from Association, two from Assembly and two from the RFB.

Since you appear to be privy to the information now, why not let the punters know now, and save any confusion being allowed to manifest itself?

It would be like bringing out a book before the end has been written.

If you can confirm that the figures are wrong, tell us what the correct figures are and put this nonsense to bed.

Why not wait for the final proposal?

These figures are being spread on Twitter but no names of where it originated from.

You'd almost think that this was being put about by people against the new group. Luckily I can confirm that the figures are wrong. What amuses me though is when RF was being set up we were told that it was so much more flexible than just buying shares.

 

Sorry guys but once again, I was not concerned about JB investing as much as he wanted to invest in Rangers, my sole concern was that if he became a director (which he would have required for the amount of his investment) the amount of time he would have had to spend on Rangers business would have reduced the amount of time he could spend on fund management and that might lead to a reduction in fund performance.

 

As rbr says I had an obligation to express that concerrn.

 

At the time he made his own assessment and decided that he didn't have the time to become involved in a company that was in administration.

 

Clearly the situation has changed now.

 

Alan, it wasn't so much what you did (although I think you were out of order). It was that you went online and bragged about what you did. You are your own worst enemy.