4th Meeting of the Rangers CIC Working Party.

[SteveC 150]

Ultimately, this is what people do worry about.

 

What do parents argue about the most? Their children, the people they care about most in the whole world. They care passionately about their wellbeing but fall out over what is best for them.

 

Because people genuinely care, they sometimes disagree.

 

I care about what is best for Rangers, and that's why I fully support BuyRangers. Others who care equally for the club, though, may not, and that's why there is tension and heated discussion.

 

When there are no passionate discussions and an absence of heated debate - that's when you should really be worried.[/

 

QUOTE]

 

Good, and I like when you post with that hat on. You've been ploughing a different furrow here, however.

 

That is true., however petty point scoring, abuse, inflexibility, entrenched positions and endless repetition of the same pedantic point ad infinitum, coupled with an aversion to listening to opposing views is something else altogether. And that is what the forums and threads like this are filled by.

 

EDIT: Apologies - I've read this back and am embarrassed by my own tone, Physician heal thyself and all that - I'll "wind my neck" in for a bit. Good luck to BuyRangers, Good Luck to RangersFirst, Good luck to the Glasgow Rangers and ....alll fan ownership vehicle boys.

Edited March 5, 2014 by SteveC

[Zappa 0]

To be fair to my dad (Rab) - I think his patience was severly tested and broken on that thread over there. There was little intention to debate Rangers First from some on there IMO

 

Which I continue to believe since the thread title still doesn't include 'Rangers First'. But that is an aside.

 

I agree with your point that it seems like some individuals are scouring for something with which to use against RF - I would ask that any of us in The Rangers Community try and enter into debate in an honest manner - we all want the same thing after all.

 

Yourself and your dad should be commended for the way you conduct yourselves because I've seen you guys come under pretty heavy fire on other forums and you've behaved almost impeccably throughout.

 

You're both a credit to your pub, the RangersFirst CIC initiative and to our Club's support in general.

[WATP_Greg 0]

Yourself and your dad should be commended for the way you conduct yourselves because I've seen you guys come under pretty heavy fire on other forums and you've behaved almost impeccably throughout.

 

You're both a credit to your pub, the RangersFirst CIC initiative and to our Club's support in general.

 

 

Cheers mate, not entirely sure what to do with praise

 

I honestly believe that Rangers First has the makings of something special. But we need to make sure it is transparent and robust so all constructive criticism should be welcomed - at the end of the day we all love the club.

 

All that being said the site is live now so hopefully some of the questions can be answered there and everyone can get a clear opinion of what RF is about.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

At the back of my mind I have the worry [with both schemes]. Whatever money I put to buying shares at the moment will lose their value, as there will be a new share issue in the [near] future. Would it not make more sense to wait.

 

Any comments ??

 

I had a similar concern about buying shares in advance of the likely new issue that will devalue them per se. However, the plan is only to invest half the money raised in the short term so as to be able to buy one for one and this maintain the percentage holding.

 

Of course, whilst the shares appear to have passed the bottom they could easily go down in value again; but the risk of buying at this level has to be balanced against the influence that will be gained from a shareholding.

[rbr 1,247]

I had a similar concern about buying shares in advance of the likely new issue that will devalue them per se. However, the plan is only to invest half the money raised in the short term so as to be able to buy one for one and this maintain the percentage holding.

 

Of course, whilst the shares appear to have passed the bottom they could easily go down in value again; but the risk of buying at this level has to be balanced against the influence that will be gained from a shareholding.

 

If there is to be a new shareholding , they will have some job if they price them wrongly , it will take the wisdom of solomon to get the pricing right

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Apology

 

Firstly I would like to apologise to anyone who was offended by the one sentence from my post at 9.30pm last night that has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread. I should have made a clear distinction between the comment that I heard and my own opinion. I regret the fact that I did not. However, I did make it clear, within two hours, following the initial reaction and repeated myself half an hour later. Therefore, I can only assume that Hildy has perpetuated the debate all day because of his clearly stated opposition to the RF scheme.

 

Decisions

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not, as he suggested, have any “inside track into what is going on at RangersFirst.” In fact I have complained that a lot of decisions have been taken behind the scenes, probably as a matter of expediency, and then presented to the meetings more or less as a fait accompli.

 

Positions

 

I have no position at Rangers First, “special” or otherwise; no one has, aside from Richard Atkinson as Secretary of the CIC pro tem; nor have I ever purported to represent Gersnet. Andy Steele represented Gersnet at the first meeting. I made that clear the moment I stepped into the room.

 

Notes/Minutes

 

Andy and I both posted reports of the first meeting on here. I did so of my own volition and was thanked for it as I have been for my subsequent reports. I also posted notes of the second meeting in the early hours of the following day, in a bid to keep people informed about a fast moving situation.

 

Two days later, RA asked me to “send me the text file of the notes you put on the gersnet site please I would like to add to them”. I complied with that request.

 

Subsequently these were published with large sections of verbatim notes (not taken by me) as the Notes/Minutes of the Meetings.

 

I was then asked to take Minutes of the 3rd Meeting but with the caveat “someone else was doing notes that would be combined”. These were also duly published though with less verbatim content.

 

I took notes at the 4th Meeting on Monday night again of my own volition and yesterday I was asked “If you also have notes from last night I am happy to use these as the basis for the meeting notes.” But once again it was made clear that “(two other people) were also taking notes”.

 

I responded by submitting my notes last night with the following comment:

 

As I remarked last week, this organisation (the working group, not the CIC) urgently needs a committee and executive officers. Then the Chair and Secretary would work together to produce an agenda (as per Co-op model rules!), the Secretary would write the Minutes, the Chair would amend if required, and the Minutes submitted for adoption at the next meeting. They would be published as adopted at that point. If such a procedure were to be implemented then notes of the salient points could be published online pro tem.

 

I don’t think that there is anything more that I can usefully add.

Edited March 6, 2014 by BrahimHemdani
Removed incorrect quotation mark.

[Hildy 0]

That's very gracious of you, Brahim, but there's really no need to apologise for having an opinion. I may not like it very much, but as is often said in these situations, I absolutely defend your right to express it.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

That's very gracious of you, Brahim, but there's really no need to apologise for having an opinion. I may not like it very much, but as is often said in these situations, I absolutely defend your right to express it.

 

And equally kind of you to defend my right to express my opinion.

[D'Artagnan 173]

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.

 

Yes I think we can all imagine who you " informed others of the words in question" to and I have no doubt the subsequent responses were unprintable.

 

I have to say it is really disappointing to see so many RST members trying to create an impression that there is something sinister, something unedifying or underhand going on here. You are really not doing yourselves or your own organisation any favours whatsoever with your conduct in this thread.

[BEARGER 1,829]

Yes I think we can all imagine who you " informed others of the words in question" to and I have no doubt the subsequent responses were unprintable.

 

I have to say it is really disappointing to see so many RST members trying to create an impression that there is something sinister' date=' something unedifying or underhand going on here. You are really not doing yourselves or your own organisation any favours whatsoever with your conduct in this thread.[/quote']

 

Could be some RST members genuinely believe that others have behaved in a underhand manner. Its not like they are attacking other fans because their partners are RC's or smearing the guys who run the Founders Trail is it?