the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'd say that NARSA and VB are polar opposites of the support and to suggest that there's a concerted campaign seems extremely far-fetched. Absolutely. It is far removed from the original reasons for the contributions. The fact that the it was even felt to be considered throws the committee's judgment into question. Although we all have feelings about it, the case is effectively a civil one that doesn't involve the club. I would have been happy to contribute to it personally but it has NOTHING to do with RFFF and as such the cash cannot be used for it. And that may well have been the decision of the majority. But the original aims of the RFFF are no longer valid at some point decisions will have to be made. Seems sensible to me that they are voted on. I do agree on vb and NARSA and I suspect vb wish they had kept their mouths shut now as they have only really devalued the NARSA statement which carries decent weight for sure. But it really comes down to this what makes your view on disposal of our money better than mine? Nothing I can really see and the only way to settle it is a vote. As I say if they had just gone ahead with this I would be apoplectic despite my yes vote. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 It's everything to do with who voted. If I invested money in this, then a majority voted to use the money for altogether different means, that would hardly be fair. They can't just change what the money is intended for even if a majority does agree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The RFFF should change and become more open, it seems everything is a big secret. I don't think so really, cb. RFFF was a sort of knee jerk reaction thing and a result of the times. The governance and policy seem to have been largely overlooked but they are essential factors in the proper running of a trust or an organisation or whatever. It's not too late to revisit all that, but talk of block votes is unhelpful in the extreme. This should be about Rangers. Here we go with another opportunity to unite everyone. Will we take it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 If I invested money in this, then a majority voted to use the money for altogether different means, that would hardly be fair. They can't just change what the money is intended for even if a majority does agree. What else will they do now. The original aims are impossible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 This whole RFFF thing is a complete mess , a mess that only Rangers fans could get themselves into , no matter what the money goes to there will be detractors , and amazingly if the people that said they put money to it actually did there would have been millions in the RFFF 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Terrific statement, we can go on about votes but issue for me is that this should never have been considered Agree and disagree. The RFFF should never have entertained the idea of spending money on something far removed from its fundraising objective, but . . . The NARSA statement is an abomination that is needlessly damaging, overly threatening, petty in the extreme and about as useful as another tax case against the club. 'Omnishambles' is a fairly new word. It could have been invented just for us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Yes omnishambles indeed 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue 64 53 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 What would people say if a group raised money for cancer victims then gave it to drug addicts. This may be an extreme example but the principle is the same, you can't raise money for one cause then give it to another or you are conning the contributers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 If cancer had been cured and was gone for ever and the majority voted for it they wouldn't say much I suspect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue 64 53 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 If cancer had been cured and was gone for ever and the majority voted for it they wouldn't say much I suspect. The minority would be conned as the money they contributed would go to a cause they voted against.. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.