Vanguard Bears - Statement on the RFFF Committee

[Zappa 0]

C'mon man, Zappa doesn't want the forum going down the gutter like RM.

 

Let's leave RM out of this. There's still plenty of good Bears posting over there and many of us here still pop in for a read and the odd post.

 

Also, it's not about what I personally want for this place mate. We're talking about long standing forum policies.

[Super Cooper 0]

Let's leave RM out of this. There's still plenty of good Bears posting over there and many of us here still pop in for a read and the odd post.

 

Also, it's not about what I personally want for this place mate. We're talking about long standing forum policies.

 

[simplythebest 0]

 

Thought we were alright.

[Super Cooper 0]

Thought we were alright.

 

You are, my issue was the use of the word plenty. Handful would even be being too kind.

[the wasp 0]

it's just impossible to take them seriously with the way so many of their members carry on in wider society. which is a shame because their concept is good and they do do the odd good thing.

 

The odd good thing? I'd say Vanguard Bears lead the way most of the time,maybe others should follow,rather than holding personal grudges.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The odd good thing? I'd say Vanguard Bears lead the way most of the time,maybe others should follow,rather than holding personal grudges.

 

Not sure if that's aimed at me but the day I follow people who threaten me will be my last.

 

If you want people to follow you then think before you threaten.

[barca72 440]

Today's blog from Vanguard Bears ...

 

http://vanguardbears.co.uk/

 

Get Your Hands Away From The Till!

 

Written by: Nineteen Seventy-Two

Tuesday, 1st April 2014

 

 

 

It's always interesting to see the response when Vanguard Bears are forced to reluctantly challenge unethical behaviour by a very small number of prominent Rangers fans' "representatives".

 

Our two recent articles about RFFF funds have irked some on the RFFF committee, and resulted in a number of venomous attacks on our site on Twitter, Facebook and Follow Follow.

 

This is not surprising from these individuals, who are showing disrespect and disdain for Rangers fans who made sacrifices in the summer of 2012.

 

One classic rant on the open forum Follow Follow by Paul Murray's chief propagandist on the site "Buster" this morning was epic in tone, anger and falsehoods.

 

http://vanguardbears.co.uk/articleimg/buster.png

 

A member of the RFFF committee then commented that the post above was "pretty accurate".

 

http://vanguardbears.co.uk/articleimg/waltersboy.png

 

Notably, no one from the RFFF has confirmed why they made a statement suggesting fans should be polled on whether Craig Houston should receive support from the RFFF after Houston had resolved differences with Sandy Easdale.

 

•Note that no-one has confirmed who on the committee made the suggestion

•Note that no-one has recognised or commented on the risk of an unsuccessful conclusion to the HMRC UTTT appeal – and who would fund any legal fight to maintain Rangers proud history against any subsequent SPFL or SFA action

•Note that no-one has satisfactorily explained why your money should be used to fund a (now mitigated) legal fight between Craig Houston and Sandy Easdale, and why it would benefit Rangers FC

•Note that neither Craig Houston or Chris Graham have denied being wined and dined by the Murrays at Fratelli Sarti in Glasgow city centre

We asked yesterday if the RFFF, or prominent fans representatives associated to them can be trusted. We'd suggest that the reaction of anger, deflection and attack to our article, rather than a measured response explaining any of the points above, is damning.

 

A close look at any of our front page articles in recent months will confirm that:

 

a) We have zero interest in VB representation within the club or in the boardroom, never have had and never will. Quite simply, this means that the opinion of Paul Murray, or Dave King, or the Scottish media is irrelevant.

 

b) We have NEVER had any dialogue or instruction from Jack Irvine, or any of the current board of Rangers at club or PLC level. We take instruction from no one, unlike representatives named in yesterday's article who remain in dialogue with Paul and Malcolm Murray. Far be it from us to suggest that those taking instruction from Paul and Malcolm Murray are useful idiots. Useless may be more accurate.

 

c) Our Meeting with Brian Stockbridge and Jim Hannah was documented on our site and distributed to our members, and comprised of a number of questions to Stockbridge about the future of the club. Our requests prior to the AGM for dialogue from Paul Murray were ignored. For avoidance of doubt, VB stated at the meeting that Jack Irvine should be removed immediately.

 

d) VB asking reasonable questions about the custodianship of Rangers' fans money results in abuse, lies and falsehoods about our site and our members. We'll leave you to decide what is and isn't aggressive about that chain of events.

 

e) Our stance on the RFFF is very simple – the money should be protected in order that Rangers history can be protected. Should the HMRC appeal be successful then these funds may well be needed for any legal challenge that may arise with the SFA or SPFL. If the appeal fails, then the funds should be utilised to enhance Rangers' future opportunities, and these opportunities should be of tangible and provable direct benefit to Rangers FC.

 

f) Rangers' history and future is Vanguard Bears' upmost priority at all times. Rangers should be managed properly and with integrity, which is why we continue to ask that the club board communicate to the Rangers support, and we expect the upmost integrity too, from supporters representatives. That includes all named in yesterday's article. To date, they are falling short of the expected behaviours for representatives of the Rangers support.

[bluebear54 0]

Firstly, I'm not on anyone's side except Rangers.

However, opinionated, divisive and non-inclusive comment such as this VB blog is unhelpful in the extreme.

That doesn't mean I take the opposite view, or "support" another group.

In my view, anyone who attempts to marginalise other Rangers supporters or groups is fundamentally wrong.

Our biggest strength is our size. Our best card is solidarity.

We are well on the way to have six or seven clubs with their own supports. All the same size as - say, St Johnstone.

Blogs like the above depress me, but go ahead and argue your corner. Just count me out.

[Tom Davison 0]

In the same way as many Rangers supporters, I know nothing about the Vanguard Bears. This recent blog, on their behalf, to be fair, gives helpful background information. However, it comes across that their desire to slag off other Rangers people commands too much of their time and possibly deflects from what they say is their chief aim "to safeguard Rangers history and future."

[The Real PapaBear 0]

To date, they are falling short of the expected behaviours for representatives of the Rangers support.

 

Not big on irony then, the Vanguard Bears.