Open Letter From The Chairman

[D'Artagnan 173]

I can only see the reaction on here and it hasn't been OTT. Many people wary of the board were willing to give the new members of it a chance to show they were different. Most of my annoyance is at the opportunity being missed, again. It's then compounded by some of our support saying that it's alright.

 

I take it you dont do Twitter then ?? :laugh2:

[bossy 0]

A lot of sense in that bossy.

 

I would point out however the club have engaged with some of the support - just not the ones who keep screaming "spivs" and other not so nice statements at them.

 

Perhaps, but that engagement has clearly not resolved the issue. Perhaps they have been engaging with the wrong people. Sometimes you actually do have to listen to your customers and shareholders.

[bossy 0]

I can only see the reaction on here and it hasn't been OTT. Many people wary of the board were willing to give the new members of it a chance to show they were different. Most of my annoyance is at the opportunity being missed, again. It's then compounded by some of our support saying that it's alright.

 

Well, of course, this site does tend to be the most measured of the Rangers message boards and where polite conversation, proper spelling and decent punctuation is the most prevalent.

[Zappa 0]

My "problem" and anger with this Zap is that some of the requistioners supporters are still promoting this guys blogs. If we are to speak about standards and constitutions etc with any earnest or integrity then we have to start displaying it first amongst ourselves.

 

Leggo isn't the only blogger to publish something below the belt in this whole sorry affair and I doubt he'll be the last either. People post blogs from Leggo, McMurdo and other bloggers and writers on most of the forums and the majority of the time it's completely harmless. If some people or indeed forums want to ban Leggo blogs because he cocked up and made a big mistake, that's up to them, but I can't see us doing so here, not because we support Leggo, but simply because doing so wouldn't make any sense. Most of the forums including Gersnet had a legal letters (in email form) from the board's lawyers forcing the removal of threads containing Leggo's blog about the SFO and I would imagine most complied with the threatening request while still allowing the posting of new Leggo blogs.

[RANGERRAB 3,255]

And the infighting continues .........

 

I don't think trying to shift the focus onto Leggat or some of the requistioner's supporters is especially constructive. There are too many in our support who seem to enjoy prolonging the infighting rather than looking for solutions.

 

Perhaps we should be focusing on why the shareholders who are backing the requisitioners are unhappy and why many in the support are unhappy. Then we might have a basis for a substantive discussion.

 

Now, if the club had chosen to engage with both the requisitioners and the support rather than continuing the war of press releases we might have found some common ground. After all, this new Chairman and CEO are supposed to be independent men without previous baggage. Poring over the minutes of previous Board meetings might be intellectually edifying but it doesn't actually help solve the current stand-off. And that, I would have thought, should be pretty high on the short-term to-do list. Of course, they had a golden opportunity at the Grosvenor meeting. One wonders why they did not seize it.

 

You need to ask how much support the 'requisitioners' actually have amongst current shareholders. It isn't a lot by all accounts and will mean the current board will win easily at the AGM. But if MCColl and KIng had bought shares(given their wealth) then things could have been very different.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Perhaps, but that engagement has clearly not resolved the issue. Perhaps they have been engaging with the wrong people. Sometimes you actually do have to listen to your customers and shareholders.

 

I think the conduct and behaviour by the requisitoners has made that difficult bossy - and I appreciate you think it is not constructive to mention Leggat - but its hard to discount when its being promoted so strongly by the requisitoners.

 

I spoken to and read quite a few bears who were swayed not by the board, who they eventually sided with, but by the conduct and behaviour of some of the requisitioners. Even on here, which I would class as a fairly level headed forum - many of the accusations against the board are unsubstantiated and little more than smear.

 

What is really interesting is that on Do The Bouncy they appear capable of discussing the boardroom without insults or falling out with each other - nor does boardroom discussion dominate their forums as it does others.

[andy steel 0]

Sod this being nice - I think that people backing the current board are virtually collaborators.

 

I can understand people not liking the requisitioners, but to back the vandals that are metaphorically burning Ibrox to the ground? It's beyond me.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Leggo isn't the only blogger to publish something below the belt in this whole sorry affair and I doubt he'll be the last either. People post blogs from Leggo, McMurdo and other bloggers and writers on most of the forums and the majority of the time it's completely harmless. If some people or indeed forums want to ban Leggo blogs because he cocked up and made a big mistake, that's up to them, but I can't see us doing so here, not because we support Leggo, but simply because doing so wouldn't make any sense. Most of the forums including Gersnet had a legal letters (in email form) from the board's lawyers forcing the removal of threads containing Leggo's blog about the SFO and I would imagine most complied with the threatening request while still allowing the posting of new Leggo blogs.

 

Both Frankie and I have been particularly consistent throughout this whole debacle, and very much of similar mind.

 

At a time when the Rangers support needed information to make responsible choices - much of the time we were fed misinformation by both camps. I honestly dont think either camp can claim the moral high ground.

 

Considerable damage has been done as a consequence of some of the lies and inaccuracies contained in some of those blogs - and I hate to think how that will affect our ability in the future to unite as a support and face the many challenges ahead.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Sod this being nice - I think that people backing the current board are virtually collaborators.

 

I can understand people not liking the requisitioners, but to back the vandals that are metaphorically burning Ibrox to the ground? It's beyond me.

 

Does that make Jim McColl a collaborator or a requisitioner ?

[bossy 0]

You need to ask how much support the 'requisitioners' actually have amongst current shareholders. It isn't a lot by all accounts and will mean the current board will win easily at the AGM. But if MCColl and KIng had bought shares(given their wealth) then things could have been very different.

 

If the requisitioners do not have a lot of support then it would be reasonable to ask why the Board (current and previous) are trying so hard to discredit them and why they felt the need to hire a PR man.