4th Meeting of the Rangers CIC Working Party.

[WATP_Greg 0]

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?

 

That is the question I would like to ask those criticising - What is the issue? If it a legitimate concern that should be addressed then by all means lets address it - we have to get this right. Now is the time, this our shot, our moment and we have to capture it (to paraphrase Eminem) - The zeitgeist is changing amongst our support. This opportunity will only come once and I believe we can make a difference.

[WATP_Greg 0]

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

 

I know who he means - I have discussed this long enough now. The point is that Rangers First is not the small band of former RST board members that some would portray it as. There are far more people like myself who have no history with anyone (although I did join the RST a short while ago). I think it should be accepted that there are people who come from different backgrounds who have came to work together on this. The lad Ian for instance who worked on his own scheme for months and donated the name is no less important than some of the Former RST board members. I feel that myself and my family have had an impact on this. I think Rangers First is worth more respect than that - it is from a wide variety of Rangers Supporters encompassing a broad spectrum of the support from what I can see.

 

Thats how I feel at least - RF can make a difference to my club and I am confident it will be a success

[Zappa 0]

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.

 

Absolutely.

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

I know who he means - I have discussed this long enough now. The point is that Rangers First is not the small band of former RST board members that some would portray it as. There are far more people like myself who have no history with anyone (although I did join the RST a short while ago). I think it should be accepted that there are people who come from different backgrounds who have came to work together on this. The lad Ian for instance who worked on his own scheme for months and donated the name is no less important than some of the Former RST board members. I feel that myself and my family have had an impact on this. I think Rangers First is worth more respect than that - it is from a wide variety of Rangers Supporters encompassing a broad spectrum of the support from what I can see.

 

Thats how I feel at least - RF can make a difference to my club and I am confident it will be a success

 

The irony is that each and every one of the former RST guys wholeheartedly agreed with Craig Houston last night when he said it should be lead by people with no history.

 

None of us want to be involved in it going forward. I just want to go watch Rangers on a Saturday and moan about the quality of the football. The clue is in the name.

 

Further to my previous post, to clarify, Club 1872 was bought over 18 months ago.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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

 

That's not how I have it in my notes but I think we can agree to differ on that precise point because we are agreed that Rangers First was the unanimous choice for the name of the CIC.

 

We also agree that there is something different about the RF scheme that I think wil capture the imagination of Rangers fans worldwide; particularly the vast majority who are not members of any organisation.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

I was reporting a comment that was made in the room and I also reported that it was not discussed.

 

I then made my own comment.

 

So far as I am aware no one has been appointed to speak for RF, least of all me.

[SteveC 150]

This whole affair stinks, I'm out.

 

You didn't ever seem keen on being "in". Why not just let it progress without you if you are not interested in joining? There is no call for this sort of pejorative and total denunciation.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Probably said as a smart-ass tongue-in-cheek quip

 

That didn't occur to me at the time but you may well be right.

[Hildy 0]

I am astonished at the following words which were posted earlier in the thread:

 

"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."

 

Here it is for all to see; a less than diplomatic approach, an implication that the one true faith has been discovered, and a casual dismissal of the alternative.

 

Unity? This is unity on Rangersfirst terms. Let's work together, they say, but what respectable organisation would work with a so-called partner grouping that is at ease displaying what some might perceive to be a rather high and mighty attitude?

 

The illuminating words above have let the cat out the bag. They have given credence to Rangersfirst doubters and ammunition to Rangersfirst enemies.

 

It's there in black and white - BuyRangers will have to consider whether to transfer its holding to this new group - for the greater good.

 

Let me respond.

 

It'll be a cold, cold day in hell before my share in BuyRangers comes within a million miles of Rangersfirst's clutching mittens.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good."

 

It's my personal opinion pure and simple based on a comment that was made last night, which as Zappa said may well have been a tongue-in-cheek quip.