VB met board after UOF meeting

[Stimpy 0]

The thread on FF is hilarious if not a sad indictment on the online support. Genuine lol moments and none that are far away from the truth IMO.

[buster. 4,808]

Let's consider the VB in terms of numbers. I don't have an exact figure but is it fair to say that it doesn't reach three digits ?

 

So whilst as individuals they have as much right to their opinion as any other Bear, as a group they are very small and by itself their collective voice means little in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

One observation given their size is that they enjoy disproportionate attention from the club and generally throughout 'Beardom'.

 

It could be argued that the attention they get from the club both pre and now post AGM is because they tend to be sympathetic towards the board, strongly opposed to much larger opposing groups, relatively very loud and have an important contact within the club.

 

Wrt Beardom (including social media), they are disproportionately loud, sometimes abusive, have a track record in judgement calls that should have them used as an 'early warning system' to detect 'dodgy custodians' and really beg to be marginalised to what may be regarded as a proportionate level.

 

 

I have noted that they do seem to be a socialable bunch as they often offer to meet you at X bar or outside Ibrox.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I'd have thought that there were certainly more than a 100 VBs.

 

Like it or not, the VBs are representative of a section of the support and I don't have an issue with the directors meeting with them.

[MoodyBlue 0]

VB's get the attention from the Board as they have sided with the Board previously and have - over the course of the past year or so - had contact with Toxic and the Easedales.

 

Call it an 'inside job' if you want.

 

i am certainly not comfortable with the VB's based on their track record - and they are tiny in numbers - but sing the Boards' tune, so will lap it up.

[buster. 4,808]

I'd have thought that there were certainly more than a 100 VBs.

 

Like it or not, the VBs are representative of a section of the support and I don't have an issue with the directors meeting with them.

 

If anyone who knows about VB numbers could tell us, I'd be grateful.

 

Re. meeting............On the face of it, neither do I.

My post was more to do with proportional voice/attention.

Edited May 20, 2014 by buster.

[Juancornetto 1]

The chaps have backed the wrong horse....again.

 

[buster. 4,808]

VB's get the attention from the Board as they have sided with the Board previously and have - over the course of the past year or so - had contact with Toxic and the Easedales.

 

Call it an 'inside job' if you want.

 

i am certainly not comfortable with the VB's based on their track record - and they are tiny in numbers - but sing the Boards' tune, so will lap it up.

 

You touch on a fear of mine, that over time they have been used by others as a tool in an ongoing effort to nuture division within the support.

 

Jack Irvine has played a prominent part in this strategy, one that goes back to SDM times.

[chilledbear 16]

Too many groups in the Rangers Support.

 

I read this morning someone saying they wouldn't sign the petition, because it came from the SOS. There may be various reasons why you don't want to sign, but because it comes from a certain Group shows all that is wrong with our support.

[MoodyBlue 0]

You touch on a fear of mine, that over time they have been used by others as a tool in an ongoing effort to nuture division within the support.

 

Jack Irvine has played a prominent part in this strategy, one that goes back to SDM times.

 

I believe this to be exactly the case mate. IMO it's as clear as day - hence why I am not exactly a fan of 'VB's. They are small in numbers but have managed to inflitrate, dived and cause confusion and concern. Working in conjucntion with Irvine, this is what you end up with unfortunately.

[Blue Moon 1,113]

Divide and conquer.