Minutes of the First Meeting of the Rangers Fans Board held on 6 October 2014

[Stimpy 0]

McCoist may be a lot of things but he's certainly no fool he knows exactly what the fans think of our style and performances,

 

Indeed. Ally's far more intelligent that people give him credit for. Thing is dude, his own self belief, borne out of his success as a player, and perhaps turning the fans onside in the 80s, is driving his self belief. His attitude as player remains but sadly it ends there.

 

This is where a strong, competent board is needed.

[barca72 440]

Since the board never spoke seriously to any of the other fans' groups, and that is where our frustration came from, what's the problem with the suggestion at the meeting?

Now that Wallace has gone and if the new guy buys into the RFB then wouldn't it be better that the board actually talks openly to one group at least?

As has been mooted, any fan can email any member of the RFB and put a question to a rep. Where, then, is any fan not being represented?

Is it not better to have one group getting answers than no group getting answers? If this, the RFB, works maybe it could be expanded.

[Super Cooper 0]

McCoist may be a lot of things but he's certainly no fool he knows exactly what the fans think of our style and performances,

 

That makes it even worse mate.

[Bluedell 5,353]

Well that just goes to show that this isn't going to be easy!

 

I would just like to make one thing clear. The suggestion that the Club should not meet unelected fans groups in future was a view that was strongly held on another forum and I see it was supported by at least one member on here. The Minute "Suggested that Rangers do not meet with other fans groups now that we have the RFB in place" is inaccurate inasmuch as the word "unelected" has been omitted and I missed that in the draft. I will seek to have it amended at the next meeting.

 

My recollection is that it was met with a murmur of approval but as Billy says, the Minutes cannot reflect every single nuance and the formatting was not helpful to understanding who said what or who disagreed with any particular point.

 

I fail to see the relevance of the word elected and the fact that this was not strongly opposed by all members comes across as arrogance. The RFB should be encouraging as much interaction between the board and fans as possible and not limiting it to themselves. This should not be an ego trip for members of the RFB and you should not be trying to ensure that fan interaction with the board is limited to just you 12.

 

There are plenty of reasons why the board should be meeting with other fans and I believe that the RFB should come out and strongly support the concept of fan engagement at any and all levels at their next meeting.

[Frankie 8,182]

Thanks to Alan for taking the time to answer our questions in the face of strong criticism.

 

May I remind people that although we may (also strongly) disagree with BH's opinions on some subjects, he is in a position where he may be obliged to ask questions (or make suggestions) he also doesn't agree with. That's why he should be able to put forward the fan's name for the minute to enable interested observers to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

I'd also like to echo BD's post and request that the fan board make it unequivocally clear that they're just one vehicle for fan engagement with the club and acknowledge when it comes to certain issues (such as ticketing or share questions), other organisations may be better placed to ask such questions - either via their own meeting or, in the interests of unity, perhaps invited to any required RFB meeting(s). Yes it may make sense to try and streamline engagement but occasionally some independent (for want of a better word) dialogue wouldn't go amiss.

 

Finally, it's clear this subject is one that interests us all. However, it's also clear that some issues won't be solved overnight, so I'd politely ask everyone on our forum to show some patience and channel their passion into respectful debate instead of personal insults.

[buster. 4,808]

Quote Originally Posted by Super Cooper

Who put the minutes together mate?

 

The Rev MacQuarrie, with assistance apparently from a Board member who took notes (not me, I hasten to add).

The following is from the long fansboard thread, 28/10/14

 

Originally Posted by BrahimHemdani

"Yes I have been on it. Draft Minutes have been issued and I suggested some amendments which appear to have been agreed.

 

Therefore I can only assume that the Minutes will now be published in early course".

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I then asked you immediately after the above and on the same thread (link below)...........

 

 

"BH, what was the hold-up ?

 

Did the amendments you suggested have to do with issues pertaining to 'away games' ?"

 

 

and there was no answer

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For long fansboard thread click on link below

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?65523-Fan-board-elections-now-closed-as-of-Saturday-20-September&p=523555&highlight=#post523555

post #564

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited November 4, 2014 by buster.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

From the long fansboard thread, 28/10/14

 

Originally Posted by BrahimHemdani

"Yes I have been on it. Draft Minutes have been issued and I suggested some amendments which appear to have been agreed.

 

Therefore I can only assume that the Minutes will now be published in early course".

 

----------

 

I then asked you...........

 

 

"BH, what was the hold-up ?

 

Did the amendments you suggested have to do with issues pertaining to 'away games' ?"

 

 

and there was no answer

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

For long fansboard thread click on link below

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?65523-Fan-board-elections-now-closed-as-of-Saturday-20-September&p=523555&highlight=#post523555

post #564

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

 

09:40hrs,

ps. I see BH is over on the Long fansboard thread, perhaps doing some catching up.

 

I do apologise for failing to answer your question but I was supposed to be on holiday 8,000+ miles away, 11 hrs behind BST and tried to keep up as best I could without entirely ruining my wife's significant birthday trip. That said I do recall checking my amendments and thought I had replied but I may have had one too many pina coladas at the Lu'au and it must have slipped my mind.

 

In any event, I am not sure I see the relevance of these questions. If you are suggesting a contradiction between the highlighted phrases then you are wrong. There is no contradiction. I did not submit notes of the meeting to Rev MacQuarrie.

 

If you are suggesting that I should only submit amendments to parts of the Minutes that relate to "away fans" then that is ridiculous.

 

So I realy don't see the point of the question; perhaps that's why I didn't answer.

 

As stated I submited (4) amendments, all of which were agreed; none were related to "away fans".

 

Just to reiterate. At the meeting I asked who was taking the Minutes. Rev MacQuarrie said he would take the Minutes. Later he said that one of the other members present at the meeting had provided him with notes and he had used these as the basis for the Minutes. Thereafter I submitted my amendments.

 

The Minutes have been published.

 

There is nothing further that I can usefully add.

[buster. 4,808]

 

In any event, I am not sure I see the relevance of these questions. If you are suggesting a contradiction between the highlighted phrases then you are wrong. There is no contradiction. I did not submit notes of the meeting to Rev MacQuarrie.

 

Just to reiterate. At the meeting I asked who was taking the Minutes. Rev MacQuarrie said he would take the Minutes. Later he said that one of the other members present at the meeting had provided him with notes and he had used these as the basis for the Minutes. Thereafter I submitted my amendments.

 

The Minutes have been published.

 

There is nothing further that I can usefully add.

 

Let's cut to the chase and ignore the 'noise'.

 

I do see a contradiction in your two statements.

 

It's plain that your amendments were part of the minutes and so you were part of putting them together.

ie. if you had no part of putting them together, then they wouldn't contain your ammendments.

 

That by itself wouldn't be much of an issue but it comes alongside other somewhat disturbing suggestions and directions that this meeting has steered the RFB towards, many already covered throughout this thread.

 

I'll add a post of mine from yesterday which I feel is relevant.

 

The macro concept of the fansboard was designed to facilitate the executive boards of RIFC/TRFC control and 'management' of the fanbase. Jack Irvine (MH) was very much the main man behind that concept as the idea first developed.

 

It isn't black or white though, there are prospective benefits and improvements that could come from it within the various areas covered, such as the lot of the disabled fan and the away supporter.

 

Beware future office bearers steering matters in such a way that provides the club with it's desired macro benefits.

Edited November 4, 2014 by buster.

[Zappa 0]

Also, who suggested the club doesn't meet with any other fan groups?

 

That again doesn't seem practical nor agreeable.

 

That was raised on another forum.

 

Was it a popular suggestion?

 

I would find it very strange if it was popular over there, although there always seems to be people who'd cut off their nose to spite their face if it meant they got to stick a long knife into the RST's back or get one over on the Trust in any way possible.

 

Getting back to the point though BH: I don't think your answer to the question was good enough and the minutes were extremely confusing on this particular point too, which is bizarre when you say you got a draft copy, suggested or requested amendments and presumably approved the minutes.

 

Specifically, that single section of the minutes reads:

 

AH: A question posed by RSA and another club:

 

• Why aren’t we having the Rangers Supporters Trust or other fans bodies represented on the RFB? (Clearly the question.)
  
• 
  
• It was a democratic process and open to everyone (Clearly the answer, but by who?)
  
• 
  
• Suggested that Rangers do not meet with other fans groups now that we have the RFB in place (By who? Completely unclear.)
  
• 
  
• Agreed to discuss with the Rangers Board of Directors as to what their plans should be going forward (Regarding what exactly? Again, completely unclear.)
  

 

Lastly BH, do you actually agree with that suggestion which was "raised on another forum" yourself?

[Rangersitis 0]

Was it a popular suggestion?

 

I would find it very strange if it was popular over there, although there always seems to be people who'd cut off their nose to spite their face if it meant they got to stick a long knife into the RST's back or get one over on the Trust in any way possible.

 

Getting back to the point though BH: I don't think your answer to the question was good enough and the minutes were extremely confusing on this particular point too, which is bizarre when you say you got a draft copy, suggested or requested amendments and presumably approved the minutes.

 

Specifically, that single section of the minutes reads:

 

AH: A question posed by RSA and another club:

 

• Why aren’t we having the Rangers Supporters Trust or other fans bodies represented on the RFB? (Clearly the question.)
  
• 
  
• It was a democratic process and open to everyone (Clearly the answer, but by who?)
  
• 
  
• Suggested that Rangers do not meet with other fans groups now that we have the RFB in place (By who? Completely unclear.)
  
• 
  
• Agreed to discuss with the Rangers Board of Directors as to what their plans should be going forward (Regarding what exactly? Again, completely unclear.)
  

 

Lastly BH, do you actually agree with that suggestion which was "raised on another forum" yourself?

 

You've nailed it.