Rangers First - Email template

[WATP_Greg 0]

But what if a board isn't? What if people in RF believe that a board isn't necessarily working to the best interests of the club? For example, I'd claim that taking out a secured loan at 30% isn't.

 

 

So if someone in RF found out what Whyte was up to you wouldn't have issued a statement on it? What is not controversial to one person may be to the next.

 

I think that you are making claims that you can't possibly adhere to over a period of time, or else RF becomes toothless. Perhaps reign back the commitments of what you will and will not do in the future as surely that's up to the members to decide whether a controversial statement will be issued or not?

 

RF is all about transparency - what we know the fans will know. That wouldn't be being controversial it would be being transparent IMO - no spin just facts. I was using controversial in this instance to mean opinionated

 

Though I suppose you are correct that RF will be dictated to what their members want but that was the consensus from the initial meetings with the 100 or so individuals but as the membership is much larger then OMOV will of course be the deciding factor.

[Bluedell 5,329]

RF is all about transparency - what we know the fans will know. That wouldn't be being controversial it would be being transparent IMO - no spin just facts. I was using controversial in this instance to mean opinionated

 

Though I suppose you are correct that RF will be dictated to what their members want but that was the consensus from the initial meetings with the 100 or so individuals but as the membership is much larger then OMOV will of course be the deciding factor.

 

Surely RF wants to be opinionated?

 

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say RF get a percentage of the club and are invited to have a rep attend board meetings. Some things discussed may be commercially sensitive and cannot be revealed to fans. There are plenty of issues where there cannot be transparency.

 

Just facts? Again a difficult thing to stay true to. Many issues are based on opinions eg is the Laxey interest rate reasonable?

 

I think you're making a rod for your own back by some of this.

[Bluedell 5,329]

That would obviously be a different situation entirely as if Rangers First was in place and we as the support had TAC then Whyte could not have done what he did, we would have all known and actions would have been set in motion to minimise the damage. That is a good part of why I joined RF - If someone comes in and removes TAC then we know we have a problem.

 

What's TAC?

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

"I and everyone involved at Rangers First are not interested in getting involved with the internal politics at the club"

 

"Ideally we are looking for 1872 people to buy a life membership at £500 which will give us enough cash to buy circa 5% of the club. 5% being an important number in a plc allowing Rangers First several capabilities including the ability to call an EGM"

 

Best of luck with that.

[andy steel 0]

Ah, I didn't quite grasp that it was a personal letter rather than a RF thing. My mistake, sorry.

[WATP_Greg 0]

Ah, I didn't quite grasp that it was a personal letter rather than a RF thing. My mistake, sorry.

 

Sorry I will edit the post and make that clearer - It is just my personal take on RF and what I am sending to people to try and get them to have a look for themselves

[WATP_Greg 0]

"I and everyone involved at Rangers First are not interested in getting involved with the internal politics at the club"

 

"Ideally we are looking for 1872 people to buy a life membership at £500 which will give us enough cash to buy circa 5% of the club. 5% being an important number in a plc allowing Rangers First several capabilities including the ability to call an EGM"

 

Best of luck with that.

 

By internal politics I mean the personalities themselves - it is the job they are doing rather than who they are that is important.

 

The ability to call and EGM is an important milestone in achieving transparent authoritative consultation (TAC) and I believe that would be a great benefit to the club and support

[WATP_Greg 0]

What's TAC?

 

Transparent Authoritative Consulatation - I think RF might be changing the wording of that to Authority Consultation & Transparency (ACT) so that it sounds better

 

ACT now for your club etc lol

[WATP_Greg 0]

Surely RF wants to be opinionated?

 

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say RF get a percentage of the club and are invited to have a rep attend board meetings. Some things discussed may be commercially sensitive and cannot be revealed to fans. There are plenty of issues where there cannot be transparency.

 

Just facts? Again a difficult thing to stay true to. Many issues are based on opinions eg is the Laxey interest rate reasonable?

 

I think you're making a rod for your own back by some of this.

 

RF's rep on the board, if they had one would be a professional that is acting in the best interests of the support as a whole. We don't need to know every single internal detail but the broad strokes should be transparent imo

 

I think it is up to you as an individual to decide if Laxey's rate is reasonable not for Rangers First to decide that for you - if we where in place just now we could put to our members what their opinion on it was and then take the result back to the board to challenge it if that is what the members wanted. (I personally think the Laxey loan was very poor btw)

 

Fair enough I will take that onboard but I think if we were transparent about the situation then the support would be a great deal more engaged with the club.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I think we have all been politicised to some degree or another over the last few years, i see that as helpful rather than a hindrance.