4th Meeting of the Rangers CIC Working Party.

[SteveC 150]

You are correct, I had reservations from the start about this but was waiting to see how it panned out. What I've been told and what I've read on here has not persuaded me to buy into it.

 

Which is fine, and well put. "whole affair" and "stinks" however = not so much.

[Hildy 0]

You're being disingenuous and completely unfair here Hildy because the whole RangersFirst initiative can't (or certainly shouldn't) be held accountable for the ludicrous/irresponsible comments of one man who doesn't represent the initiative as a whole.

 

Keeping repeating yourself with slightly different wording will never turn the comments of one guy who doesn't represent RangersFirst into some sort of big bad conspiracy or sinister modus operandi no matter how much you would like it to.

 

Believe me, Zappa, when I informed others of the words in question here, their replies, unlike my post, we're completely unprintable.

 

His opinion, as far as I can see, still stands, and although it appears to be inconvenient for others who have bought into the scheme, it is a view that people will not easily forget or ignore, and nor should they.

 

Mending fences and building bridges will not happen when perceptions such as this from one close to, and indeed part of, the scheme see the light of day.

 

It may be the view of one person, but when that person is the one bringing updates on meetings to this website, it simply cannot be glossed over or ignored.

[amms 0]

This new scheme has been sold as a benign entity, an alternative means of striving for fan ownership, another model to try alongside BuyRangers, and then after a meeting of the main players, this assertion was boldly put:

 

"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."

 

Take out "as was suggested last night" and you are left with the crux:

 

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

 

This is the future choice for BuyRangers then, stated by someone with an inside track into what is going on at Rangersfirst.

 

Does it sound conciliatory? Does it imply cooperation? Or does it come across as empire building and threatening?

 

My answer to those remarks was emphatic and entirely appropriate after reading such a provocative statement.

 

The remarks shone a light into the dark recesses of the Rangersfirst scheme, and demonstrated that those who have serious doubts about it are absolutely right to be concerned.

 

I don't think you've understood the point I was trying to make, perhaps I didn't make it very well. I've no issue with you disagreeing with BH, there's not a poster on this board who hasn't disagreed with him at some point, I've expressed a few unpopular views myself in the past that people have disagreed with, that comes with the territory. My point was regarding the language and tone you used to express that disagreement. His sentence annoyed you which is fair enough, I've no problem with that, but there is a way of seeking clarification or expressing your annoyance that shouldn't result in posts that read like Dickensian blood oaths.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm simply pointing out that it felt like a disproportionate response to the original statement. Highly emotive and personal statements which involve defiant public vows are unhelpful because your point, which might be valid, is then lost in a sea of recrimination, counter post and heightened tension. You might feel your point is important, you might even be correct, but everyone else looking on reads pages of posts where personal issues seem to be far more important than the ultimate aim of rescuing our club. My point is that is to the detriment of your stated aim, you won't attract people to you, you'll do the opposite.

[26th of foot 5,825]

Rangers supporters need a lever urgently.

 

Thus far, two schemes are available to satisfy the demand.

 

Each Bear should decide which lever is the more efficient.

 

Why can't we leave it at that?

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Somewhere down the line there will be a realisation that one of the schemes, is the better at achieving our aims of fan ownership. When that happens i think there will be calls for an amalgamation of the two schemes. I'm a member of the RST but might also join the Rangers First scheme, they both have merits that i can see at this early stage, however should one scheme be the outright preferred way forward, then i would agree an amalgamation would be for the general good, as the lesser of the two shcemes would surely be redundant?

[Hildy 0]

I don't think you've understood the point I was trying to make, perhaps I didn't make it very well. I've no issue with you disagreeing with BH, there's not a poster on this board who hasn't disagreed with him at some point, I've expressed a few unpopular views myself in the past that people have disagreed with, that comes with the territory. My point was regarding the language and tone you used to express that disagreement. His sentence annoyed you which is fair enough, I've no problem with that, but there is a way of seeking clarification or expressing your annoyance that shouldn't result in posts that read like Dickensian blood oaths.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm simply pointing out that it felt like a disproportionate response to the original statement. Highly emotive and personal statements which involve defiant public vows are unhelpful because your point, which might be valid, is then lost in a sea of recrimination, counter post and heightened tension. You might feel your point is important, you might even be correct, but everyone else looking on reads pages of posts where personal issues seem to be far more important than the ultimate aim of rescuing our club. My point is that is to the detriment of your stated aim, you won't attract people to you, you'll do the opposite.

 

My reply was direct and uncompromising but it did not reflect the feather-spitting rage that people felt when informed about what had been said.

 

When I see a more compromising tone from people involved with this scheme, I may reply in kind, but the contentious opinion expressed last night merited exactly what it got.

[WATP_Greg 0]

Believe me, Zappa, when I informed others of the words in question here, their replies, unlike my post, we're completely unprintable.

 

His opinion, as far as I can see, still stands, and although it appears to be inconvenient for others who have bought into the scheme, it is a view that people will not easily forget or ignore, and nor should they.

 

Mending fences and building bridges will not happen when perceptions such as this from one close to, and indeed part of, the scheme see the light of day.

 

It may be the view of one person, but when that person is the one bringing updates on meetings to this website, it simply cannot be glossed over or ignored.

 

I'm sorry to disagree with you but this is purely the views on one individual on here who chose to take their own minutes at the meeting and publicise them - His opinion is allowed to stand as it is his opinion. That does not mean that it is representative of Rangers First - It is not. Mr Harris has no special position at Rangers First. I can't be clearer

 

I have been present at every meeting of Rangers First - the issue that you have a problem with does not exist. You are merely creating a straw man. I repeat this is not an issue.

 

I would also hope that you inform those whom you told that that is not the view of Rangers First and is just the view of one individual. We, as a support, have no need to spread misinformation about any groups as far as I can see.

[Frankie 8,136]

My reply was direct and uncompromising but it did not reflect the feather-spitting rage that people felt when informed about what had been said.

 

When I see a more compromising tone from people involved with this scheme, I may reply in kind, but the contentious opinion expressed last night merited exactly what it got.

 

Who is it you are informing? I'm sorry but I don't know who you are nor your position with any of the groups...

 

I really think you're taking one small quote out of many and using it to perpetuate other issues. Now, again, most of us (the majority in fact) don't know enough about these past issues (private emails being posted and allegations being posted on other forums aside) so you will forgive us for being ignorant in that regard.

[Hildy 0]

Who is it you are informing? I'm sorry but I don't know who you are nor your position with any of the groups...

 

I really think you're taking one small quote out of many and using it to perpetuate other issues. Now, again, most of us (the majority in fact) don't know enough about these past issues (private emails being posted and allegations being posted on other forums aside) so you will forgive us for being ignorant in that regard.

 

I informed fellow Rangers fans who are friends of mine.

[Frankie 8,136]

I informed fellow Rangers fans who are friends of mine.

 

Fair enough. I do think they should visit to avail themselves of the full context of this debate though.

 

It really is a pity when issues are misrepresented.