Rangers First - Email template

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

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

 

So you don't mean the politics then, fair enough. Perhaps you should change it.

 

And it is a RF thing, not personal, so you need to bang a different drum.

 

"I and everyone involved at Rangers First are...."

[WATP_Greg 0]

So you don't mean the politics then, fair enough. Perhaps you should change it.

 

And it is a RF thing, not personal, so you need to bang a different drum.

 

"I and everyone involved at Rangers First are...."

 

Quote was written based on the original meetings but I changed it in op as the membership is now much larger so I can't really say that anymore - fair point

 

re: internal politics - maybe better saying not interested in 'playing internal politics'

 

Idioms

8.

play politics,

a.

to engage in political intrigue, take advantage of a political situation or issue, resort to partisan politics, etc.; exploit a political system or political relationships.

b.

to deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement.

 

More appropriate?

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

Quote was written based on the original meetings but I changed it in op as the membership is now much larger so I can't really say that anymore - fair point

 

re: internal politics - maybe better saying not interested in 'playing internal politics'

 

Idioms

8.

play politics,

a.

to engage in political intrigue, take advantage of a political situation or issue, resort to partisan politics, etc.; exploit a political system or political relationships.

b.

to deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement.

 

More appropriate?

 

More appropriate but if the major point you raise re 5% etc is the ability to call an egm, you are 100% covering issues regarding the innermost politics of the club.

 

It needs to be clear to would be investors.

[WATP_Greg 0]

More appropriate but if the major point you raise re 5% etc is the ability to call an egm, you are 100% covering issues regarding the innermost politics of the club.

 

It needs to be clear to would be investors.

 

 

What would you suggest?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Broadly, I think this is a very reasonable letter for Greg to issue on a personal basis, subject to some of the typos and caveats that folks have added.

 

However, I would suggest that he adjusts some of the wording from third to first person and adds something to the effect that all the statements represent personal opinions and are not necessarilly the views of RF especially the sentence that has been highlighted "It was agreed at the initial meetings that Rangers First is not interested in getting involved with the internal politics at the club (who is on the board does not matter) – we are only interested in getting the fans a voice to ensure that they stay engaged with the club and to help ensure that Rangers stays the greatest and most successful club in the country."

 

Use of the word "we" implies that this is the settled view of RF, which it is not.

 

On the subject of typos I would change "There is a swell of support for increased fan involvement at Rangers Football Club – and something that has previously not received a great deal of wide support is now become a possibility." to say HAS become a possibility but perhaps even better "a great deal of support has now become a (very real) possibility. (The words in brackets are a suggested addition.) "Wide" is redundant becuase it is covered by "not received a great deal".

 

It may well be worth having a letter very similar too this signed off by the Interim Trustees for general use.

Edited March 18, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

 

It is not realistic to say that the membership will have a say on everything on a OMOV basis. That will apply to general policy and major decisions etc but cannot possibly work on a day to day basis. There will be an elected Board and Office Bearers whose job it will be to put the poicy into practice on day to day issues.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

"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.

 

I think that it is a reasonable and entirely achievable objective particularly when you factor in folks who are prepared to sign over their existing holdings minus one share.

 

It is people like Greg who will make it happen.

Edited March 18, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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

 

The problem with T&C or TAC is that it normally means Terms & Conditions.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

I am sorry but that statement is wrong and it highlights the difficulty faced by a fan's rep on a football club board, be it from a trust or any other organisation. A director has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company (which may not necessarily coincide with the fans view) and is also bound by principles such as confidentiality (and will certainly be asked to sign a document to that effect) and collective responsibility.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

I think that it is a reasonable and entirely achievable objective particularly when you factor in folks who are prepared to sign over their existing holdings minus one share.

 

It is people like Greg who will make it happen.

 

I agree, it may possible with a lot of luck. But my reply was merely to point out the massive contradictions in the statement. It was claimed to be personal and that RF had no interest political. The op says the opposite of that, as I quoted.

 

Anyway, good luck with it. I am all for fan ownership, had a sizeable holding and financial loss in oldco and will be buying a significant number of shares when the structure and board changes in the near future.