plgsarmy

Dear Mr Graham

 

I hesitate to respond to one such as your good self whose debating and commentating skills are legend but there area number of inaccuracies in your post that I need to correct.

 

Firstly, I did not insinuate anything about you. I made a comment about "at least one of those who is taking part in the merger talks"; if you took that to refer to yourself then that's up to you. I also wonder why you chose to make that post here since the apparently offending post was made on RM?

 

I am sure that members of RF will be indebted to you for your advice (although I have no idea why you as an RST Board member would feel it is appropriate step into this debate) but whilst you are correct that RF is not currently a member of SD, you are quite wrong to suggest that if RF was a member it could opt out of its rules. I believe that as a former main board member of SD and Chair of SDS I have somewhat more experience in these matters than you. I am advised that the question of SD membership has been discussed by RF on a number of occasions and remains a "live" topic.

 

RF was founded with considerable assistance from SDS. Andrew Jenkin of SDS was appointed as an "independent person involved within the process." (AJ). Approximately 20 hours after nominations closed all candidates were sent the Supporters Direct Code of Conduct for Directors and asked to get "in touch if there is anything within this which you feel does not make you suitable to become a Director of Rangers First."

 

The Code of Conduct for Directors states inter alia:

 

6.4 Directors must "avoid conflicts of interest"

 

24.0 Directors should not be in receipt of hospitality ..... that may compromise their position or lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organisation has been compromised.

 

It also states that all Directors must be elected in an election conducted under the organisation's election policy and have complied with that policy.

 

The SD Election Rules Policy states inter alia:

 

4(a) Candidates must not be an employee of Supporters Direct.

 

So in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC

 

In addition, all Members seeking election to the Society’s Board, Council or Advisory bodies will be required to sign a declaration on the nomination form to confirm that they will comply with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT which states inter alia:

 

2. Qualifications for office. To qualify for elected office with Supporters Direct individuals must not be an employee of Supporters Direct.

 

So again in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC

 

and expands on Conflicts of Interest and Prejudicial Interest and in particular stresses that the member "must consider whether 'an ordinary member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts, would think that their personal interest was so significant that it would prejudice their decision on this matter'".

 

5 (e) Declaring Gifts and Hospitality Elected members should not be in receipt of hospitality, goods, services, gifts or any other benefit, that may compromise either their position or that of the organization, or may lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organization or of the member has been compromised.

 

So anyone who is standing in this election has committed themselves to abiding by the SD Code of Conduct for Directors, which implies compliance with the SD Election Rules which in turn require compliance with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT.

 

However, if the election is not being conducted under SD Rules, why were candidates asked to signify compliance with the Code of Conduct for Directors which itself requires compliance with the SD Rules & Election Policy which prohibit conflicts of interest or the acceptance of hospitality? On the other hand if SD Rules do not apply to this election then precisely what rules do apply and where can I find them? These questions are not directed at you, Mr Graham, since you are not a member of RF.

 

Even if no rules at all apply to the election a director must avoid conflicts of interest and must not accept benefits from third parties. As a company director yourself thoise are Statutory Duties with which you will be familiar are you not?

 

Since the entire business of RF is to purchase shares and fund other areas in Rangers FC I would contend that it would be more or less impossible for any person elected to the Board who has a conflict of interest through financial involvement with the Club or is an employee of the Club to take part in any board discussion so it would be impossible for such a person to function as a Director of RF.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

I asked Rd one question , such a massive spolash that it hasnt even had a retweet nor a follow up question .

 

Ok as I asked you first, how could it go ahead if the largest group votes against it

 

By the way I am not against a new group , however I am deeply skeptical that the usual suspects are lining up for positions and are using social media to marginalise certain RF members

It's not really the largest group. Season ticket holders also voted for it. What I'm saying that if one group decided it didn't want to participate and the others did then it would still go ahead. In my opinion of course.

I see you splashed it all over Twitter anyway. Why could it not go ahead?

All members were e-mailed and asked to vote. Have you changed your e-mail address. I should perhaps have said that it is only my opinion that it will happen anyway but each organisation's members will be asked to vote for the final proposal. If one of them don't vote for it, I think it will still happen but I'm very confident it will be voted for by all.

And there it is the elephant has finally entered the room , instead of consultation on a new group its a takeover , Christine you should be ashamed of that post , when RF members voted , they did so with 100% certainty that it was in the clubs interests that there was a new fans body , but all along the RST were plotting away in the background , Im absolutely disgusted by some of the things Dingwall and his ilk have posted on twitter today , Rangers first put the club first , the RST cant say the same IMHO, not after today

You are not reading what I said. And you are way off the mark with what you say. Plotting away? Three people from RF have been involved in exactly the same discussions as me. Where are the plots? The members of three organisations voted for the proposal to be advanced. It's not a takeover by anyone. You are taking your hatred of Mark and blaming what he says on the RST. It's nothing to do with us.

For what is best for the group, but I can do so because I personally don't believe it would make any difference to the fans or the club. The club can continue to liaise with two supporters groups with ease, a merger wouldn't stop the internal conflict, it's ongoing and unfortunately here to stay, like at any club.

 

I'm happy to be proved wrong, I would easily hold my hands up if proved wrong, what we've been through the last 5 years doesn't prove we are the best fans of any club in the world, we we're that long before 2012 and CW. We had differences of opinions then, and that will always continue, such is our passion for Rangers. I think it's great! Debate, discussion on how to improve - even if proved wrong - can only be healthy.

What we are talking about is a new group that will appeal to all fans, including ones who aren't particularly interested in shareholding. I believe it will have something for everyone. If RF members choose not to join up then it will be happening anyway. There is no down side to it.

No! But I had to stand for what I personally believed best for the group.

I repeat, what is best for the group or what is best for the club and the fans?

Will Gersnet be voting in this?

Given that 97% of RF members voted to explore the possibility of creating a single supporters body, it seems odd to me that so many candidates are against the idea.

 

Is this focus on independence driven by principle or personality clashes?

It's clear to me that the RF board (or some of them) are against the idea of the new fans group, despite an overwhelming majority of their members wanting the idea explored further. I'm not sure I understand why. They have been represented at the same meetings that I have attended.

Who is standing that holds a position with other fans groups? If they are a member of RF why shouldn't they stand

 

Why is Gough standing , why is the Rev Macquarie standing , both have extremely close ties to the club and cannot be classed as impartial , at the moment Twitter is all about RF bashing , an awful lot of that is by people who should know better , why they are doing it is anyone's guess

 

You'd need to ask them or look at their statements.

Christine don't be so nieve , we are already getting club loyal people standing for RF positions , that already hold positions with other fans groups , the Twitter world is awash with contradictions from people who should know better , and when ever that person raises his head and starts preaching to us mere mortals , that's when my spidey senses start twitching .

Who is standing that holds a position with other fans groups? If they are a member of RF why shouldn't they stand?

To be fair he didn't make it up, it was simply stating a concern.

Perhaps but why would he think that. It's already stated that the new group would be completely independent from the club and something all supporters can buy into.

Let's hope that's not the case

Of course it's not the case. It doesn't stop some people making things up.

I'm starting to get very very uncomfortable that this could be a club/RST stitch up , if that is what comes out of this all hell will break loose

Happy to discuss this at any time rbr. You have my number.

I was one of the lowly 3% who voted for RF to remain an independent entity! I will of course listen to all members views, when the times comes for an official poll I will put forward the case for remaining independent but I will fully back whatever decision is democratically decided by the RF members. I will not STRONGLY push to remain separate from other excellent fans groups, as I say I will present the case for remaining separate. At the end of the day if the fans and members decide a merger is what is best for the club, and the fans groups, that is what matters in the end.

Welcome Ryan. If the proposal for the new group proves to be better for the supporters would you still put Rangers First first?

So if they are elected they would work against a united group?

 

Why?

I've no idea, you'd have to ask them. I think the RF members will vote overwhelming for it when they hear the proposal.

Thanks lads.

 

Anyone know if these two were in the RST previously?

They were. They wanted the RST to talk about fan ownership only and make Paul Goodwin from Supporters Direct our spokesman. They did not want us to speak about the dysfunctional Board at the time. They were defeated despite trying their best to get as many of their allies as they could along to the meeting. Then dummies were spat out. Looks like they are going to do the same thing again when the new fans group gets off the ground. You'd have to question why they wouldn't want a united group.

Can you confirm that a former colleague of John Gilligan at Tennents, Malcolm Stackhouse, has been appointed by the Club as a consultant to advise on the merger, what part Ross Hendry is playing in these matters and who is remunerating them for their services?

I'm not saying any more about this Alan. You have come on here and Rangers Media to stir things, it's pretty obvious what you're doing.

I have named all the people who I have been told are involved.

 

I am not involved and I don't know if the information I have been given is correct nor do I know any other names.

 

It would appear from your other posts on this subject that are directly involved, so you would know who else is involved.

 

I would think the biggest concern would be the involvement of the Club in what is supposed to be an independent Fans' Board, which is exactly what happened last time.

I find it strange that you know all the names of the people from the RST and not the names of those from an organisation you are a member of. Why don't you raise any concerns with them?

who selects the nominees?

 

sorry reading that back it sounds accusatory its not meant that way was just wondering where the pool comes from

I didn't take it that way at all. I suspect people will apply and then be vetted by an independent body, probably Supporters Direct.

Not a surprise that Graham and Gough are in the same picture.

 

It would appear they are being lined up for places on the unified Fans' Board.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is being 'lined up'. The board will be elected by members.

Why would there be any secrecy about those who are involved in the talks?

Why would it matter who the individuals are when I've told you what groups are involved? You have named people from some organisations and not others. Why is that?

My understanding is that you, Gordon Dinnie and Chris Graham are representing RST.

 

I understand that Alan Fraser and another (Rev MacQuarrie?) is representing the RFB, which is strange since that organisation is defunct and that Andy Kerr is representing the Assembly which is also strange since that organsisation is another that appears to be defunct.

 

I also understand that Club Director(s) have been present and that the Club has appointed a consultant who used to work for or with John Gilligan ostensibly to assist the process.

 

Can you confirm any of the above?

Alan, some of the above is true and some isn't. This is currently a work in progress and we will hopefully be putting out a proposal soon. If you like it, fine. If not, nobody will be forced to join.

Can plgsarmy or any one else shed any light on the identity of those taking part in the "merger" talks and confirm or deny the rumour that the Club's plan is that the new unified Board will hold all the monies contributed by fans and use these on a 50%/50% basis to buy shares and otherwise invest in the Club?

I don't think it's my place to name individuals but there are representatives from the RST, RF, the Assembly, the Association and the Rangers Fans Board. In addition, it is not the Club's plan. The Club is merely facilitating the talks but is not involved in the decision making process.

Why is this statement being made by the chairman of the club? The fans groups should be completely independent of the club, the last thing we need is another company union type organisation.

 

"Work is also ongoing to merge the existing supporters groups. The new organisation that emerges will provide Rangers fans with a way to get even closer to the Club and to increase the supporter shareholding position."

The new group will be completely independent but will have a close relationship with the Club. However, it will not toe the party line when it comes to something that the fans are not happy about and the Club understands this. I have actually suggested that the elected board of the new organisation can not receive any benefits from the Club. They have to be in it to benefit the Club and not themselves.