Frankie 8,182 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I am not going to take issue with a fellow Board member on a public forum, so I will just make a few points to furhter clarify my view. The "constituency" I was referring to was the electorate of 23,000 or so; however many of them voted is another matter. I agree that the RFB has to earn its own credibility. The suggestion to lengthen the term of office was not made by me it was made by Alan Fraser but I agree with it because as things stand the first term is only October 14 to June or July 15 and IMHO that is a very short term for any Board especially a new one. IF and as you say no decision has been made, such a proposal were to be made and agreed by the Club then the first term would still be less than two years. I will be proposing some method of rolling elections thereafter to provide some degree of continuity and avoid a completely fresh Board being elected every time. It is another matter if, as in the case of the Disabled category, only around 3% of the electorate voted. How many voted in the other categories? How many members joined outwith season ticket holders? Should, if as seems likely, this issue be discussed again in a few weeks, exactly what fan groups and/or individual fans will you be looking to exclude from club dialogue? For example, can we expect no further open fan forums in the Ibrox Suite? What about AGMs for shareholders - will these be under threat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 BH, if an elected rep from the RST or Association wants to meet with the club who do they go to? RFB or through their usual channels? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 BH, if an elected rep from the RST or Association wants to meet with the club who do they go to? RFB or through their usual channels? It seems you no longer have the size of electorate to meet with the club. Have a nice day. Don't call again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 It is another matter if, as in the case of the Disabled category, only around 3% of the electorate voted. How many voted in the other categories? How many members joined outwith season ticket holders? Should, if as seems likely, this issue be discussed again in a few weeks, exactly what fan groups and/or individual fans will you be looking to exclude from club dialogue? For example, can we expect no further open fan forums in the Ibrox Suite? What about AGMs for shareholders - will these be under threat? As I have stated several times I don't have the information about voters or non ST members, though I suspect the latter at least is a low number. I have not and will not specify any group other than the description I have given and explained in some depth. This has nothing whatsoever to do with fans meetings but it is a fact that I proposed fans meetings twice a year at Ibrox and at least once a year away from Ibrox. And before you ask, I would make them open to any fan. It was solely in connection with groups with whom the directors might chose to communicate directly. Once again I would reiterate that any fan can contact any member of the fans board about any matter or go directly to the club as they see fit. As you well know this has nothing whatsoever to do with shareholder's meetings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) BH, if an elected rep from the RST or Association wants to meet with the club who do they go to? RFB or through their usual channels? That would be up to the group concerned and the Club, I was only explaining my position that in my opinion elected representatives of properly constituted groups have a right to be heard. But if I was one of them I would go directly to the Club unless I was advised otherwise. That said the RSA came to me on the issue of representation and I put forward their question and relayed the answer back to them. As I have also said and it is clear in the Minutes the directors will be asked to confirm their future communication policy at the next meeting. Edited November 7, 2014 by BrahimHemdani Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 As I have stated several times I don't have the information about voters or non ST members, though I suspect the latter at least is a low number. I have not and will not specify any group other than the description I have given and explained in some depth. This has nothing whatsoever to do with fans meetings but it is a fact that I proposed fans meetings twice a year at Ibrox and at least once a year away from Ibrox. And before you ask, I would make them open to any fan. It was solely in connection with groups with whom the directors might chose to communicate directly. Once again I would reiterate that any fan can contact any member of the fans board about any matter or go directly to the club as they see fit. As you well know this has nothing whatsoever to do with shareholder's meetings. Stop being so mealy mouthed. IIRC, you agreed with the raised generic RM point that the club shouldn't be meeting with unelected fans and you alone are now going further by saying the size of the electorate is now a factor (unless this has also been raised on RM). Ergo, what groups and fans should this apply to? Who should the club not meet with? I assume this issue won't be skirted in such a fashion at the next meeting so let's not skirt here. We're all big boys... Further, given the very low percentage (or even unavailable) numbers involved in voting you and your colleagues into position, would you consider your appointment legitimate in comparison? After all, what's good for the goose.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,353 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I'd also say it's a clear dig at Chris Graham and the UoF. Further, it seems as if size of the electorate is now a consideration as well, no matter if the body is constituted correctly. It's a real pity the RFB allowed itself to become divisive in its first meeting but I'd hope the discussion in this thread will have focussed minds somewhat on the unsuitability of restricting engagement to one group. Agreed. My first draft of the reply did include UoF. The use of the word "unelected" is crazy anyway. Let's say that SoS consist of 2 people and they both decide that Craig Houston should be the spokesman and should be able to speak to the directors. They would therefore meet the criteria that the RFB appear to be setting and would be able to meet the directors of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,353 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 That would be up to the group concerned and the Club, I was only explaining my position that in my opinion elected representatives of properly constituted groups have a right to be heard. Are you suggesting that those who are not "properly constituted" should not be heard? Now that you are in place, How many barriers do you want to put up to prevent others from getting the access that you now have? if supporters clubs, who are a major part of who you are meant to be representing, do not have constitutions, you are saying that they do not have a right to air their grievances with the club? You are effectively saying that if the directors decide to have another meeting in the Ibrox Suite then Gersnet should not be able to send along a representative? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Agreed. My first draft of the reply did include UoF. The use of the word "unelected" is crazy anyway. Let's say that SoS consist of 2 people and they both decide that Craig Houston should be the spokesman and should be able to speak to the directors. They would therefore meet the criteria that the RFB appear to be setting and would be able to meet the directors of the club. I propose you and Frankie to represent GN's members' interests with Rangers. Can I get a seconder, a quick vote then we've got legitimate status. Forget that we're life long fans, season ticket holders, shareholders, maybe even past bond holders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 Stop being so mealy mouthed. IIRC, you agreed with the raised generic RM point that the club shouldn't be meeting with unelected fans and you alone are now going further by saying the size of the electorate is now a factor (unless this has also been raised on RM). Ergo, what groups and fans should this apply to? Who should the club not meet with? I assume this issue won't be skirted in such a fashion at the next meeting so let's not skirt here. We're all big boys... Further, given the very low percentage (or even unavailable) numbers involved in voting you and your colleagues into position, would you consider your appointment legitimate in comparison? After all, what's good for the goose.... I did not say that the size of the electorate IS a factor what I said was that "the Club might take a view depending on the size of their membership." and I gave two examples to justify that, one being in relation to the Club and another the SG. However, I have not and will not be making any such proposal so I trust that sets your mind at rest. I consider that all the members of the RFB were duly and legitimately elected in a properly constituted, independent election but the conduct of the election was in the hands of the Club, the NC and the company that dealt with the voting. I am not sure what comparison you are making but if I can use my experience at the RST as an example, the Board was elected by a very small number of people (less than 30) if memory serves me) who chose to attend the AGM. Nonetheless the Board was legitimately elected in accordance with the Constitution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts