BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author 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 know this has been a very long thread, BD but I did deal with that point specifically at #277. Just to be clear the RFB only agreed to discuss the matter with the Club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 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? NO, BD I am not saying any of that. Again, I would respectfully refer you to #277 where I said "Also whilst I think that a constitution is the best basis for an election, it isn't absolutely essential; so long as there are clear and transparent rules governing an election. " That is my personal opinion. I would also respectfully refer you to #304 on the subject of public meetings, I was very clear that "I would make them open to any fan". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I'm surprised at FS's category having such a small number of voters and I think it's logical to assume that means that less than 1,000 voted overall. Really thought it would have been anywhere up to 5,000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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. I'm unaware of claiming it was your suggestion and I fail to see the need for you to state who it was. You being the master of Constitutions will be well aware that a degree of continuity is alreay provided for . 13.2 The maximum number of Terms that an Elected Representative may serve continuously on RFB is two. At the end of a second consecutive Term, that Elected Representative cannot seek automatic re-election in terms of clause 13.3 of this Constitution or enter the Selection Process 13.3 Before the end of a Term, RFB shall determine a maximum of three of its Elected Representatives (who are eligible to serve on RFB for a further year) who will be automatically re-elected for the following Term without the need to proceed through the Selection Process or Election. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Quote Originally Posted by Time4_Change My grammer is p**h but it's an honest mistake that comes from a poor education. I thank you for the now nightly lesson. However, it is ironic that I get my lessons when you seem to 'run out of things to say' ! My old Grandmother used to tell me that one favour deserved another and perhaps in return, I could offer you some lessons in how to sniff out those characters taking advantage of Rangers. It's just that it hasn't been your strong point and I'd have thought it might be useful if you were prepared to harbour such thoughts or consider such possibilities. I'm prepared to consider all possibilities. I come back to the clubs interests being better served by the RFB, rather than the fans interests. The idea/suggestion/proposal that the RFB,........... look to facilitate a process that will marginalise groups who are active in holding the board to account and protesting for the interests of the support as they see it, is perverse. You say above that "I'm prepared to consider the possibilities" regards holding the RIFC board to account in a meaningful and significant way. Yet you actively seek to install layers of comfort for them and for some reason and despite all of your experience, couldn't see that Charles Green was a bullshitter. I'd say you should be looking to encourage groups who actively demand more for transparency because your current course will see the RFB become a stillborn casualty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 "Vote me in for a second term." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 You being the master of Constitutions will be well aware that a degree of continuity is alreay provided for . Thanks for that compliment, FS. Personally, I am not very comfortable with 13.3 which I could see leading to all sorts of difficulties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I'm surprised at FS's category having such a small number of voters and I think it's logical to assume that means that less than 1,000 voted overall. Really thought it would have been anywhere up to 5,000. How many of the season ticket holders automatically enrolled are aware that they're in a membership scheme? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Thanks for that compliment, FS. Personally, I am not very comfortable with 13.3 which I could see leading to all sorts of difficulties. Neither am I but it is what it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 I'm unaware of claiming it was your suggestion and I fail to see the need for you to state who it was. No you didn't but your dissected my post and made you comment about the suggestion, immediately below where I said "On the other hand persons who claim to lead a group but who had not stood in an election or where there had not been an election for more than say 2 or 3 years, may have somewhat less legitimacy, if any legitimacy at all. I hope this helps clarify my view." So I would suggest that most people would have read your comment to mean that the suggestion came from me. Let's not get into a public slanging match about matters that we have agreed are not well reported in the Minutes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts