BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 Neither am I but it is what it is. No reason why we can't seek to change it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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. Thanks for the clarification. Obviously, I'm not suggesting the RFB were not illegitimately elected - I'm just saying that if we consider your RST numbers explanation then the same issue could be attributed to the RFB as well given your claims of a 23,000 constituency compared to the numbers provided for one candidate vote. In that sense, the club's view RE: size as you put it, may be a hypocritical one. Now, please can you tell me which groups and/or individuals you'll be recommending the club don't meet with. I think it's important to get this out in the open and there's no reason not to make this clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Cage rattled! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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. It wasn't my intention to infer it came from you and am happy to clarify that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 Thanks for the clarification. Obviously, I'm not suggesting the RFB were not illegitimately elected - I'm just saying that if we consider your RST numbers explanation then the same issue could be attributed to the RFB as well given your claims of a 23,000 constituency compared to the numbers provided for one candidate vote. In that sense, the club's view RE: size as you put it, may be a hypocritical one. Now, please can you tell me which groups and/or individuals you'll be recommending the club don't meet with. I think it's important to get this out in the open and there's no reason not to make this clear. I will not be making any specific recommendation about any group. I don't think I can be clear than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 It wasn't my intention to infer it came from you and am happy to clarify that. Thank you for clarifying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I will not be making any specific recommendation about any group. I don't think I can be clear than that. So you agree that some groups/people shouldn't be meeting with the club but won't be saying which ones? Why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 So you agree that some groups/people shouldn't be meeting with the club but won't be saying which ones? Why? Because I do not know the mechanics of every group or indeed any group of which I am not a member and am not prepared to go on hearsay. I have stated that I support the principal I am not going any further than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 So you agree that some groups/people shouldn't be meeting with the club but won't be saying which ones? Why? To do so, would illustrate only too well what this in good part, is all about. Clubs Interests trump Fans Interests It stands to reason the club as it currently is, would be keen from the outset to make the RFB work for them in certain strategic areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Quote Originally Posted by Frankie So you agree that some groups/people shouldn't be meeting with the club but won't be saying which ones? Why? Because I do not know the mechanics of every group or indeed any group of which I am not a member and am not prepared to go on hearsay. I have stated that I support the principal I am not going any further than that. Are you the man to force the issue of Transparency at Ibrox ? Do you consider moves to marginalise groups looking for such would be a good first step ? If you don't know the mechanics of the groups how could you be part of a move to force them anywhere ? Edited November 7, 2014 by buster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts