What can we do?

[Hildy 0]

SoS and Chris Graham are part of the UoF because they were invited. I would look on UoF more as a conglomerate of organisations (and a few individuals) rather than an organisation in its own right, similar in a way to the Assembly. I'm a member of an organisation that's a member of the Assembly but I don't get to vote on the Assembly office bearers. Likewise the representatives of the organisations and individuals who make up UoF would have decided who would attend.

 

I don't see what the problem is from the UoF side is. It's the Rangers directors who should have more of an issue with it given they are dealing with reps from only a section of the support.

 

I have no wish to attack or undermine Chris Graham or SOS, but I do think the UOF has to be able to answer questions like Brahim's convincingly.

 

Chris has the respect of many Rangers fans for his media appearances, but while SOS has friends too, I know several very reasonable people who have no wish to be represented by it, and that's putting it mildly.

 

It maybe has a role to play, but I'm not sure that it should be at the cutting edge where negotiations are concerned.

 

The UOF needs to be seen to be as democratic as it can be at all times. We want an end to self-appointed people running the club. It's important then that we should keep what are sometimes perceived to be self-appointed unelected groups and individuals at a safe distance when sensitive discussions are taking place.

[buster. 4,808]

I have no wish to attack or undermine Chris Graham or SOS, but I do think the UOF has to be able to answer questions like Brahim's convincingly.

 

Chris has the respect of many Rangers fans for his media appearances, but while SOS has friends too, I know several very reasonable people who have no wish to be represented by it, and that's putting it mildly.

 

It maybe has a role to play, but I'm not sure that it should be at the cutting edge where negotiations are concerned.

 

The UOF needs to be seen to be as democratic as it can be at all times. We want an end to self-appointed people running the club. It's important then that we should keep what are sometimes perceived to be self-appointed unelected groups and individuals at a safe distance when sensitive discussions are taking place.

 

Bottomline is that each individual has an economic choice or decision to make wrt the ST question.

As it stands it would seem as though a large percentage are delaying or have decided not to renew/buy.

 

With that in mind it would seem as though the board of the club decided to engage with the UoF.

What is important here is that the board of the club made this decision based on the deficit between projected and actual ST numbers at this point in time.

 

Ie. the board perceive that the UoF vehicle and their fundamental aims are in good part favourably recognized by many of those who haven't renewed or pledged to 1872 Ltd.

[Frankie 8,157]

I have no wish to attack or undermine Chris Graham or SOS, but I do think the UOF has to be able to answer questions like Brahim's convincingly.

 

Chris has the respect of many Rangers fans for his media appearances, but while SOS has friends too, I know several very reasonable people who have no wish to be represented by it, and that's putting it mildly.

 

It maybe has a role to play, but I'm not sure that it should be at the cutting edge where negotiations are concerned.

 

The UOF needs to be seen to be as democratic as it can be at all times. We want an end to self-appointed people running the club. It's important then that we should keep what are sometimes perceived to be self-appointed unelected groups and individuals at a safe distance when sensitive discussions are taking place.

 

I think there's some fair points there to be honest.

 

UoF was put together to infer/achieve unity when, in fact, it doesn't represent all that many people while groups like SoS can't really be taken seriously in a formal sense.

 

In saying that if club are willing to recognise UoF as only fan negotiating party then that says a lot in the absence of anything else.

[Bluedell 5,348]

Chris has the respect of many Rangers fans for his media appearances, but while SOS has friends too, I know several very reasonable people who have no wish to be represented by it, and that's putting it mildly.

As do I but I reckon they'd claim that they aren't representing all fans. They are only representing those organisations who have agreed to be affiliated with it.

 

Each of these organisations has its own operating procedures for how democratic they are. The UoF isn't an organisation in its own right as far as I can see and therefore presumably the democracy part is when each of the constituent members votes on the way forward.

 

Individual fans don't appear to be members and therefore there presumably can't be OMOV but if you're in the RST, UB, TBO etc then you can presumably have a say in our your organisation has its say.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Brahim has just set his alarm.

 

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt, that was a joke.

 

Unfortunately I just read this; maybe I can get it on the iplayer.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, that also was a joke.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

SoS and Chris Graham are part of the UoF because they were invited. I would look on UoF more as a conglomerate of organisations (and a few individuals) rather than an organisation in its own right, similar in a way to the Assembly. I'm a member of an organisation that's a member of the Assembly but I don't get to vote on the Assembly office bearers. Likewise the representatives of the organisations and individuals who make up UoF would have decided who would attend.

 

I don't see what the problem is from the UoF side is. It's the Rangers directors who should have more of an issue with it given they are dealing with reps from only a section of the support.

 

I have an issue with Rangers directors negotiating with unelected so-called fans representatives.

 

I have read that SoS is a two-man band one of whom is Craig Houston. No doubt SoS were invited to join UoF because of what was seen as his sterling work with posters, red cards etc etc.

 

I don't know anything of Mr Graham's background other than that he somehow started appearing on STV and other programmes. Was the UoF his brainchild?

 

I have also seen a picture of Messrs Dinnie, Houston and Graham representing the UoF and so far as I can gather Mr Robertson represents Association. I don't know about the Assembly but as has been mentioned they appear to be more or less redundant.

 

I take the point that members of an association elect their delegates who would then elect their committee and/or appoint delegates to a meeting. But there appears to be a stage missing in the UoF process.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Bottomline is that each individual has an economic choice or decision to make wrt the ST question.

As it stands it would seem as though a large percentage are delaying or have decided not to renew/buy.

 

With that in mind it would seem as though the board of the club decided to engage with the UoF.

What is important here is that the board of the club made this decision based on the deficit between projected and actual ST numbers at this point in time.

 

Ie. the board perceive that the UoF vehicle and their fundamental aims are in good part favourably recognized by many of those who haven't renewed or pledged to 1872 Ltd.

 

I am quite sure that all that is absolutely true, sad as it is from my perspective.

 

However, the fact that the Club has chosen to engage with the UoF does not make those who attended the meeting legitimate representatives of the UoF nor can they be considered representatives of Ibrox 1972. Ltd.

[buster. 4,808]

I am quite sure that all that is absolutely true, sad as it is from my perspective.

 

However, the fact that the Club has chosen to engage with the UoF does not make those who attended the meeting legitimate representatives of the UoF nor can they be considered representatives of Ibrox 1972. Ltd.

 

The RIFC board seem to think them legitimate and/or relevant because they were prepared to sit down with them.

 

What's important and IMO the reason the board are taking them seriously is that the large 'unpolitized middle rump' of the Rangers support which over the years the club have been able to depend on have now in large part effectively given a vote of no-confidence in the RIFC board. That 'middle ground' are in part starting to awaken.

[MoodyBlue 0]

I have an issue with Rangers directors negotiating with unelected so-called fans representatives.

 

 

Why would you have an issue ?? Call them what you want, put them under whatever banner you want - at the end of the day they are Rangers fans. I see absolutely nothing wrong with fans being allowed time with the club. Fair play to UoF for getting off their erses and actually caring for our club. Craig Houston deserves a medal for the way he has risen to this challenge, almost single handedly. He is just a normal, passionate fan who wants his club back, just like the rest of us.

 

Chris Graham has also been excellent.

[buster. 4,808]

Why would you have an issue ?? Call them what you want, put them under whatever banner you want - at the end of the day they are Rangers fans. I see absolutely nothing wrong with fans being allowed time with the club. Fair play to UoF for getting off their erses and actually caring for our club. Craig Houston deserves a medal for the way he has risen to this challenge, almost single handedly. He is just a normal, passionate fan who wants his club back, just like the rest of us.

 

Bottomline

 

The board of RIFC (plus Sandy Easdale) had the choice to engage with them or not,...... they did.