Rangers Unite Statement

[Steve1872 4]

Rangers Unite‏@RangersUnite

The following statement was read out this evening at a meeting with Supporters Direct, RST, Rangers Assembly...and the Rangers Supporters Association

STATEMENT: Mr Graham, Mr Davidson and Supporters Direct, we would like to take this time to thank you all for your approach to RangersUnite.

in an effort to eliminate opposing Membership Schemes focussed on the acquisition of Rangers Football Club. RangersUnite (RU) has been very active over the last few months, bringing in additional support and expanding our association... and with this expansion RU has had to increase our purpose to encapsulate all that is required to bring about... a supporter majority ownership of our club.

For the avoidance of doubt RU believe the following purposes must be core to achieving a successful outcome...and in the best interests of all supporters.

Our Purposes: 1. DELIVER FAN MAJORITY OWNERSHIP

2. UNITE ALL RANGERS SUPPORTERS UNDER ONE SUPPORTERS PLATFORM.

3. TO SUPPORT A ROBUST SUPPORTER OWNED VEHICLE THAT HAS AN ACHIEVABLE MODEL AND PLAN TO BRING ABOUT MAJORITY OWNERSHIP OF OUR CLUB.

4. JUSTICE TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESTRUCTION AND DAMAGE TO OUR CLUB

5. OPPOSITION TO THE LIQUIDATION OF RFC “OLDCO”.

Implementation of these purposes is to be be governed by these values:• Honesty and Transparency• Equality• Unity• Democracy• Respect

RU believed that the initial approach by Supporters Direct would have followed a minimal diligence that would...ensure that any such progress would have to align with each of the respectful parties. To date we have seen no evidence of...

any structure that could ensure a successful outcome.

We appreciate that Supporters Direct are a competent advisory Group, but to date there has been a lack of any advice.In our opinion there has been a lack of the following: 1. Due Diligence between the parties 2. Structure to permit progress.

3. Lack of consultation with RangersUnite 4. Lack of urgency with little support to the leadership of Supporters Direct.

This leads us to our concerns related to the democracy of such a venture.

1. Two groups were invited to participate, RST and RU, this lacks a quorum.

2. RU opposed the proposed public identity should an agreement be reached, however this opposition was dismissed regardless

3. Supporters Direct met with Charles Green to discuss proposals that had not been created nor approved.

4. The imposition by Supporters Direct that all supporters could only participate by joining RST, an item of great contention by RU...and is most certainly opposed by RU. Every supporter should be able to participate free from membership of any group.

5. The appointment of Mr Ian Davidson MP - there was no consultation or approval by RU.

6. RU respectfully believe that the political views of Mr Davidson are in conflict with the

vast majority of... Rangers Supporters, which would be an obstacle to success.

7. Due to a lack of transparency, consultation and overruling opposition of critical items, RU believe there is a... private agenda, which is not in the best interests of the Rangers supporters.

RangersUnite do not believe that these proposals will succeed as they lack transparency, democracy and integrity.

We believe that only proposals that have the supporters and RFC as core will succeed and will only succeed when they have been given.. the transparency, democracy and respect they are entitled to, especially due to the significant negative events that have occurred... the transparency, democracy and respect they are entitled to... especially due to the numerous negative events occurring at the Club over the last 18 months. Although we may all be agreed that supporters involvement is critical to all, we believe that what has been discussed tonight is not in... line with the purpose and values that are central to RangersUnite, which we believe is in the best interests of EVERY Rangers Supporter.. and the Club, and therefore we cannot support such a proposal End of statement. Link to follow shortly for a full review of the full text...http://coplandroad.org/#471668

Edited August 28, 2012 by Steve1872

[simplythebest 0]

Sorry, what?

[pete 2,499]

Do I have this right that the group set up to unite the fans has now un-united?

Edited August 28, 2012 by pete

[forlanssister 3,050]

Interesting the constant references to transparency given that there's no clue as to those behind Rangers Unite on their own website.

 

However agree re point number 4, the RST imo should have in theory been an appropriate vehicle for fan ownership (even in a limited capacity) but has been tarnished beyond repair by the constant infighting and "he said, she said" crap and the disastrous attempted takeover/merger of/with the RSA.

[bigy 0]

So a group that was working behind the scenes to develop a proposal has had their cover blown by a group who could have influenced it.

 

There are a lot of inaccuracies in that statement which I'm sure will.be corrected and explained by the relevant parties soon.

[Stimpy 0]

Folks, I will comment on this tomorrow so you know the facts. It's late and my bed awaits.

[Shane 0]

Interesting the constant references to transparency given that there's no clue as to those behind Rangers Unite on their own website.

 

http://www.rangersunite.com/contact-the-team/

 

Our names, positions, and contact info has been readily available for months. That may have been the case early on, but our team is there for you to know and talk to any time. Feel free to email us. I'll give you my mobile number if you want it.

 

As for the people who are going to give the "facts" tomorrow, I'll go first. And since it's late and I'm tired I'll just copy my post from RM. (Sorry)

 

I'm not going to get in a flame war here, just get a few simple facts out of the way:

 

The RST reached out to us over a month ago to sit down and have a chat. We both felt at the time that 'competing' plans would not be in the best interests of the club and the fans. At our request, only executive directors of both groups were permitted to attend, which would exclude certain vocal board members of the RST. Independent observer(s) were invited to be present and report accordingly, and SD was along to begin molding the new formula. The meeting was, by all accounts, a smashing success and it looked as though in due time with the help of SD we would have a joint effort that all supporters who believe in fan ownership and what it can do to protect and provide for our club could get behind moving forward.

 

The followup meeting, at the insistence of RST, featured all board members, which opened the door for those vocal parties to attend. The previously independent observer(s) were not so independent, and it was made clear that the amalgamation of plans proposed in the first meeting was not the in the plans of RST/SD at all. Nothing from the RU proposal would be taken on board, despite the indications that a joint effort was of the utmost importance prior. The subsequent meetings became a formality in the sense that everything that was said at the first meeting had obviously gone out the window.

 

Bearing in mind a number of subsequent factors and revelations surrounding the discussions and issues at the club and you have our statement today, which if you take the time to read is quite concise and clear in its implications. We will release more information including our revised proposal and supporting documentation as soon as possible. We are still simply a group of dedicated supporters who work on this project in our time with our own funds. Anyone saying we asked for a penny is lying. Anyone who says you can't find out who we are is lying. Our names and emails are readily available on the website, which will be heavily updated over the next 24-72 hours to bring new information and detail to supporters everywhere. We had hoped to still find common ground with the RST but it has been made apparent that they feel their plan as it stands is the only true option, and we simply do not believe that is the case.

 

All I've got to say for now.

 

Also, an easier to read version can be found here: http://www.rangersunite.com/rangersunite-statement-28-august/

 

We'll be updating the RU website over the next couple of days.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Shane
added link

[Bluedell 5,353]

What a dreadful statement.

 

RU believed that the initial approach by Supporters Direct would have followed a minimal diligence that would...ensure that any such progress would have to align with each of the respectful parties.

 

What does this mean?

 

I've read the statement and not quite sure what the point they are trying to get over. There seems to be an assumption that the reader has some existing knowledge of certain facts. I think that the English is vey poor and I think that they have used incorrect words in certain places but I'm not entirely sure as I don't understand all the points that they are trying to get over.

[Bluedell 5,353]

Also who is the Mr Graham that is referred to?

 

Edit: It seems to be Chris Graham. Not quite sure of the connection there either.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Bluedell

[Frankie 8,182]

Also who is the Mr Graham that is referred to?

 

Edit: It seems to be Chris Graham. Not quite sure of the connection there either.

 

Chris Graham I think.