4th Meeting of the Rangers CIC Working Party.

[chilledbear 16]

I informed fellow Rangers fans who are friends of mine.

 

Just leave it mate, BH put his foot in it !!

[Hildy 0]

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.

 

Remember what was said:

 

"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."

 

This suggests that the writer has his own opinion, which he is of course entitled to, but that someone else present in the room holds the same view - 'as was suggested last night'.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Hildy 0]

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.

 

I think you can understand why I have drawn attention to this.

 

When I saw those words last night, it would be a massive understatement to say that I was merely disappointed.

[Frankie 8,114]

Remember what was said:

 

"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."

 

This suggests that the writer has his own opinion, which he is of course entitled to, but that someone else present in the room holds the same view - 'as was suggested last night'.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

As an outsider looking in, it might well be CIC have to transfer their holdings in the future to BuyRangers. That could be discussed on here by more than a few folk.

 

That doesn't mean anyone else on the BuyRangers scheme agrees with me or that they're actively pursuing such an outcome.

[Frankie 8,114]

I think you can understand why I have drawn attention to this.

 

When I saw those words last night, it would be a massive understatement to say that I was merely disappointed.

 

I'm sorry but I don't understand as, not knowing your interest in this debate, I'm not sure of your intentions.

 

To me it looks as if you're involved with BR scheme (or the RST) somehow and are upset at the way the CIC scheme developed. I can understand that as the background to this issue is still open to debate.

 

However, without knowing the full facts, it's very difficult for anyone to form an opinion either way. Mark and Rab throwing tomatoes at each other on FF doesn't really count for worthwhile debate on that front.

 

Ergo, when we do see what appears to be a desperate attempt to find offence/fault with the CIC scheme administrators it just looks like more handbags.

 

It would be a massive understand to say the rest of the RFC support is merely disappointed with such.

[Zappa 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.

 

A personal opinion is nothing more than a personal opinion though and as far as I know BH represents neither RangersFirst or Gersnet in any official capacity. If someone wants to go to certain meetings and post reports here, then that's their prerogative. It might be an idea if meeting attendees were asked to keep information as brief as possible until such time as official minutes of the meetings are released to the public, but that's another matter.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I think the problem stems from it really not being presented as a personal opinion.

 

But that's sort of been cleared up now.

[amms 0]

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.

 

More compromising than this?

 

There is no heavy hitters in our group - we are all part of the collective. However, our own personal opinions should be taken as such.

 

That suggestion to me is simply non of Rangers First's business - we have no right discussing what BuyRangers or anyone else does with their shares or their assets - that is their business.

 

That seems pretty unequivocal to me.

 

Look it's your business how you feel and how you express that, I'm just explaining how that comes across, but at the end of the day it's none of my business and I'm probably wiser staying out of it.

[Hildy 0]

I'm sorry but I don't understand as, not knowing your interest in this debate, I'm not sure of your intentions.

 

To me it looks as if you're involved with BR scheme (or the RST) somehow and are upset at the way the CIC scheme developed. I can understand that as the background to this issue is still open to debate.

 

However, without knowing the full facts, it's very difficult for anyone to form an opinion either way. Mark and Rab throwing tomatoes at each other on FF doesn't really count for worthwhile debate on that front.

 

Ergo, when we do see what appears to be a desperate attempt to find offence/fault with the CIC scheme administrators it just looks like more handbags.

 

It would be a massive understand to say the rest of the RFC support is merely disappointed with such.

 

I have made it clear that I invested in BuyRangers. I have also made it clear that this new scheme holds no appeal for me. The circumstances of its birth are troubling, but even if the RST had been running both schemes, I would have stayed with BuyRangers and steered clear of this new idea.

[WATP_Greg 0]

Remember what was said:

 

"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."

 

This suggests that the writer has his own opinion, which he is of course entitled to, but that someone else present in the room holds the same view - 'as was suggested last night'.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

You can quote his opinion as much as you like, but it is still his opinion and not representative of Rangers First.

 

I know what has been said at the meetings because I have been to them all.

 

I have countered his assertions that someone else in the room had the same thoughts - I didn't hear that. Please read the posts I have made if you seek elaboration on that topic.

 

I can't be clearer