How to join the RFC fan board

[Frankie 8,151]

Will you be throwing your hat into the ring, Frankie?

 

Not as it stands.

 

Firstly, I oppose the initial fee for non-season ticket holders - in fact I've written to the club asking them to remove this for the first year. Secondly, I'm not sure I've currently got the time to really apply myself properly to any position. Finally, I'm hoping that irrespective of my first two points there will be people much better suited and skilled for a board which really needs to achieve a positive new era for fan engagement.

 

FWIW, I'd be happy to back FS as well - he's the type of independent and knowledgeable bear we need for such roles.

[Rangersitis 0]

Not as it stands.

 

Firstly, I oppose the initial fee for non-season ticket holders - in fact I've written to the club asking them to remove this for the first year. Secondly, I'm not sure I've currently got the time to really apply myself properly to any position. Finally, I'm hoping that irrespective of my first two points there will be people much better suited and skilled for a board which really needs to achieve a positive new era for fan engagement.

 

FWIW, I'd be happy to back FS as well - he's the type of independent and knowledgeable bear we need for such roles.

 

Fair dos, although I do think that you would be a fine addition to anything which was genuinely set up to improve things.

 

I think we both know the reason why there was a fee for those who refused to buy a ST.

[Frankie 8,151]

Fair dos, although I do think that you would be a fine addition to anything which was genuinely set up to improve things.

 

I think we both know the reason why there was a fee for those who refused to buy a ST.

 

Thanks but in many ways I think it may be best for some fresh names for a change. Of course experience of fan engagement would be useful but if supporters see the usual names they may be turned off at the outset which is something anyone standing needs to weigh up. In any case, people stand or fall on their own merits so that's fine.

 

I agree it's valid enough to be cynical with regard to why there's an initial fee. Generally, a small fee (and £25 is reasonable enough) isn't something I'd oppose going forward under the correct circumstances but I do strongly believe the first year should have been been open and free so all fans could take part and decide if it's something they'd like to subscribe to in future years. From the club's point of view, this may have been the best way to ensure a positive start in good faith. Instead we have more cynicism which is a shame - though understandable.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Thanks but in many ways I think it may be best for some fresh names for a change. Of course experience of fan engagement would be useful but if supporters see the usual names they may be turned off at the outset which is something anyone standing needs to weigh up. In any case, people stand or fall on their own merits so that's fine.

 

I agree it's valid enough to be cynical with regard to why there's an initial fee. Generally, a small fee (and £25 is reasonable enough) isn't something I'd oppose going forward under the correct circumstances but I do strongly believe the first year should have been been open and free so all fans could take part and decide if it's something they'd like to subscribe to in future years. From the club's point of view, this may have been the best way to ensure a positive start in good faith. Instead we have more cynicism which is a shame - though understandable.

 

To be honest Frankie think it is symptomatic of the general malaise ShoredBear spoke of in another thread, from top to bottom.

 

We have a board of whom it is alleged, and not without reasonable cause, clearly are having issues raising the required revenue streams to finance the club. They highlight previously that there is a priority need for greater engagement with the fans, and then promptly charge those with whom they would seek to engage, a sum for doing so.

 

Go figure.

[Frankie 8,151]

To be honest Frankie think it is symptomatic of the general malaise ShoredBear spoke of in another thread' date=' from top to bottom.

 

We have a board of whom it is alleged, and not without reasonable cause, clearly are having issues raising the required revenue streams to finance the club. They highlight previously that there is a priority need for greater engagement with the fans, and then promptly charge those with whom they would seek to engage, a sum for doing so.

 

Go figure.[/quote']

 

Like I say, in principle, I don't mind the idea of a paid Membership scheme - however, it's not a surprise people hold doubts about this one when the more vocal of the club critics are (or at leas feel) excluded from the process.

 

Add in the uncertain state of the Assembly then it's no wonder fans remain confused.

[Hildy 0]

"The Nominations Committee – Reverend Stuart MacQuarrie, former Rangers Captain David Weir, international rugby star Alastair Kellock and supporters Tom Mowbray, Mhairi McKenzie, Melville Curry, Ross Hardie and Holly-Jade Johnston – will evaluate applications from a number of supporter categories with Club Members then asked to vote on the 12 candidates they feel will best look after their interests."

 

Firstly, who nominated the nominations committee? Answer: the current Rangers board - the same one that thousands of Rangers fans don't endorse, respect or trust.

 

Secondly, they will 'evaluate applications'. Question: how will they do that and what right do they have to do it?

 

Thirdly, why should there be any category of supporter at all? Answer: to engineer the make-up of the board.

 

Fourthly, why does there have to be an ex-player on the committee? Question: how many ex-players have said or done anything of any value during the recent years of crisis? John Brown spoke out, but that's about it. Has Derek Johnstone caught the mood of the support? Has Mark Hateley?

 

This farce is taking over from where the rotten borough that was the Assembly MK1 left off.

[der Berliner 3,249]

"The Nominations Committee – Reverend Stuart MacQuarrie, former Rangers Captain David Weir, international rugby star Alastair Kellock and supporters Tom Mowbray, Mhairi McKenzie, Melville Curry, Ross Hardie and Holly-Jade Johnston – will evaluate applications from a number of supporter categories with Club Members then asked to vote on the 12 candidates they feel will best look after their interests."

 

Firstly, who nominated the nominations committee? Answer: the current Rangers board - the same one that thousands of Rangers fans don't endorse, respect or trust.

 

Somewhere they had to start and maybe these people showed more reason than others? That said, if you question the choice of Weir ...

 

 

Secondly, they will 'evaluate applications'. Question: how will they do that and what right do they have to do it?

 

I'd assume the nominees gave a number of fields of "interest" and their "background"? What "right" does the committee have? Well, they are the "chosen" committee!

 

Thirdly, why should there be any category of supporter at all? Answer: to engineer the make-up of the board.

 

Maybe, just maybe ... a wheelchair fan from Kircaldy has different ideas, suggestions, and problems than a NARSA member in Ontario? A 12-year old different ideas than a 79-year old? Just as food for thought.

 

Fourthly, why does there have to be an ex-player on the committee? Question: how many ex-players have said or done anything of any value during the recent years of crisis? John Brown spoke out, but that's about it. Has Derek Johnstone caught the mood of the support? Has Mark Hateley?

 

Maybe they wanted one on the committee table who has an insight about the club's machinations, someone who is not connected to the board or the media? And Weir was one they phoned up and who agreed to be part of it?

 

This farce is taking over from where the rotten borough that was the Assembly MK1 left off.

 

All about opinions and we'll have to wait and see whether it takes the same route or not.

[blueflag 378]

Somewhere they had to start and maybe these people showed more reason than others? That said, if you question the choice of Weir ...

 

 

 

 

I'd assume the nominees gave a number of fields of "interest" and their "background"? What "right" does the committee have? Well, they are the "chosen" committee!

 

 

 

Maybe, just maybe ... a wheelchair fan from Kircaldy has different ideas, suggestions, and problems than a NARSA member in Ontario? A 12-year old different ideas than a 79-year old? Just as food for thought.

 

 

 

Maybe they wanted one on the committee table who has an insight about the club's machinations, someone who is not connected to the board or the media? And Weir was one they phoned up and who agreed to be part of it?

 

 

 

All about opinions and we'll have to wait and see whether it takes the same route or not.

 

Forever the optimist.. send some your whackybacky this way

[der Berliner 3,249]

Forever the optimist.. send some your whackybacky this way

 

Sorry, it's all mine!

[Hildy 0]

Somewhere they had to start and maybe these people showed more reason than others? That said, if you question the choice of Weir ...

 

 

 

 

I'd assume the nominees gave a number of fields of "interest" and their "background"? What "right" does the committee have? Well, they are the "chosen" committee!

 

 

 

Maybe, just maybe ... a wheelchair fan from Kircaldy has different ideas, suggestions, and problems than a NARSA member in Ontario? A 12-year old different ideas than a 79-year old? Just as food for thought.

 

 

 

Maybe they wanted one on the committee table who has an insight about the club's machinations, someone who is not connected to the board or the media? And Weir was one they phoned up and who agreed to be part of it?

 

 

 

All about opinions and we'll have to wait and see whether it takes the same route or not.

You should apply.

 

After evaluation, you could find yourself being one of the chosen ones. They might even create a new category for you!