Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Maybe it's just me, but i see all these schemes being doomed to failure. The infighting continues and the cliques still exist on all 'sides'. Very sad that individual egos and agendas will actually lead any good to failure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be pedantic, it's just the way I am; but there was never any suggestion that the CIC be named Rangers Coop. At the second meeting, the domain http://www.rangers.coop was proposed as it had been registered by SD. The name Rangersfirst.org was then offered by the gentleman who owned it and that was adopted.

 

16 people taking £500 life memberships on the night is an incredible start and shows the potential that exists.

 

I'm sorry to disagree but Richard proposed the name 'Rangers COOP' including the URL above - Ian then countered with Rangers First as he had the name in mind for his own membership scheme that he had been investigating for several months on his own. It was then through discussion, unanimously decided that Rangers First would be chosen. I for one am happy with the name 'Rangers First' as I feel it captures the mood of the meeting succinctly.

 

I am impressed with the level of uptake - that is not including the two memberships that my family intend to obtain. There is something in this Rangers First scheme - of that I am positive

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who suggested that nonsense?

 

I don't even see the point in discussing that as it's only likely to inflame the situation even further and I'd imagine that many BuyRangers contributors would be completely opposed to the notion.

 

The BuyRangers and RangersFirst fan ownership vehicles can easily run in parallel and we've already seen evidence to suggest that the competition is healthy.

 

The two groups should be able to work together for the greater good simply by proxy voting, but the notion of the RST transferring it's BuyRangers holdings in the company to the CIC is absolutely ludicrous.

 

 

I think they will be run in parallel - I agree competition is good as it drives innovation.

 

I do foresee that on many big issues both BuyRangers and Rangers First will end up voting together as they both have the supporters interests at heart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me, but i see all these schemes being doomed to failure. The infighting continues and the cliques still exist on all 'sides'. Very sad that individual egos and agendas will actually lead any good to failure.

 

I think a key part of The Rangers First meetings have been discussions on how those with egos will be pushed aside - we are all cogs in a much larger machine. If everyone does a small amount then RF will be successful. It must also be upfront and transparent in order to obtain the trust of the support at large and be a success. I am entirely confident that this is the route that we are going down (now that I have joined I can say we :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no votes taken on any issues last night when I was in the room and I did not go out for any reason whilst the meeting was in progress.

 

That said I see no reason to distrust any of those involved.

 

I also have little doubt that RF will very quickly overtake the BR in terms of monthly contributors (under 200?) and that whilst everyone is entitled to make their own choice or no choice the whole (BRF?) would be worth far more than the sum of the parts.

 

In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good.

 

As a BuyRangers member I would politely tell those involved with RangersFirst to gtf and leave the actual BuyRangers members to decide what to do with our shares. RangersFirst have no say at all over it and neither to SDS. It is massive arrogance from anyone to assume the BuyRangers members would want to do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an RST member I will be voting no to giving shares to people who've acted less than honest to the RST. Terrible idea.

 

You have not been asked to vote on anything that I am aware of. If you don't wish to be a part of Rangers First then don't be - it is a personal decision- I would expect you to buy into BuyRangers and I commend you for seeking greater fan influence at the club.

 

I have not been 'less than honest' with the RST and I am a member of Rangers First. Everything since day one of the meetings is thoroughly documented on the minutes - The first meeting in The Louden is where Rangers First began, it was named at the second meeting and launched to the members present at the fourth. I am entirely comfortable with Rangers First and that is why I have committed my money and offered my shares to them. I believe this can work and that it will be for the benefit of the Support at large and the club in the long term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a BuyRangers member I would politely tell those involved with RangersFirst to gtf and leave the actual BuyRangers members to decide what to do with our shares. RangersFirst have no say at all over it and neither to SDS. It is massive arrogance from anyone to assume the BuyRangers members would want to do this.

 

Can I just point out that Mr Hemdani was speaking on his own behalf and his views do not necessarily represent the views of Rangers First (as neither do mine) - No one is telling you what to do with your shares and neither should they.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every single meeting so far has been governed by consensus. There has been plenty of opprtunity to raise any concerns for all of us. I initially favoured the Rangers.coop name, but through discussion in the room was happy with how we progressed.

 

I'm sure if the name proposed is really a major issue, it can be changed.

 

To give a bit of background to the name, similar to Rangers First being owned by the chap Ian and kindly donated, the name Club 1872 is also independently owned by someone who wishes it to be used. If it is tainted by being proposed before, then it's easily changed. Raise it at the next members meeting and explain it to the room, I'd be willing to wager that most people will see it as petty though.

 

As for James Blair. He completed the skills audit just like everyone else at the meeting. He's done work with SD before. Partner at a respected law firm. What's the issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not been asked to vote on anything that I am aware of. If you don't wish to be a part of Rangers First then don't be - it is a personal decision- I would expect you to buy into BuyRangers and I commend you for seeking greater fan influence at the club.

 

I have not been 'less than honest' with the RST and I am a member of Rangers First. Everything since day one of the meetings is thoroughly documented on the minutes - The first meeting in The Louden is where Rangers First began, it was named at the second meeting and launched to the members present at the fourth. I am entirely comfortable with Rangers First and that is why I have committed my money and offered my shares to them. I believe this can work and that it will be for the benefit of the Support at large and the club in the long term.

 

I suspect he means the six ex-RST Board members who have been working on this for months, not you Greg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.