MoodyBlue 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The constituency was approx 23,000 and I don't have the breakdown of the voting numbers but I know I got 49% of the vote in a 3 person race and won by 22% (the other two candidates combined got 51%). I think you need to realise that hardly anyone voted in this whole thing. A tiny fraction of the 23k, maybe, but I wouldn't get too high and mighty about a vote that hardly anyone really cared for or participated in. Is this all about you, or Rangers fans best interests, BH ?? Genuine question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I think you need to realise that hardly anyone voted in this whole thing. A tiny fraction of the 23k, maybe, but I wouldn't get too high and mighty about a vote that hardly anyone really cared for or participated in. Is this all about you, or Rangers fans best interests, BH ?? Genuine question. MB, allow me to jump in. I think you have to consider the interests of the Fans v Club. In the micro, such as the 'lot' of the away fan it might be in the mutual interest of both club and fan that X is improved or changed. However in the macro, such as proposals to marginalise fansgroups, there is a clear divide between the interests of the club and the fan. This is where it would seem as individual RFB members might have to align themselves to the fans interests or club interests. IMO it is perverse that a fan on the RFB would align themselves alongside club interests in the example used above. It would be a disturbing precedent, more especially if such fans were to become office bearers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I think you need to realise that hardly anyone voted in this whole thing. A tiny fraction of the 23k, maybe, but I wouldn't get too high and mighty about a vote that hardly anyone really cared for or participated in. Is this all about you, or Rangers fans best interests, BH ?? Genuine question. I get the impression that is intended more rhetorically than genuinely . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I get the impression that is intended more rhetorically than genuinely . Whatever makes you think that ?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruff 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I don't recall candidates being put forward to hold the board to account so I think it would be unfair if fans who tried to do just that were marginalised. I also think TRFB will have shot themselves in the foot if an agreement is made that fan groups should be ignored. If the board were to come out and say "from now on we will only be repying to queries put forward by TRFB" then fair enough but I'd be a little peeved if I was told "from now on we will only be replying to queries put forward by TRFB because the TRFB voted on it and it was their decision." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Just to be clear the RFB only agreed to discuss the matter with the Club. And that is precisely the problem. Not only was a ludicrous suggestion you'd been given (and agreed with) aired at the meeting, but it's apparently been agreed to take it further and discuss the matter with the Club. The RFB need to throw nonsense like that in the bin before it even gets as far as being discussed with the Club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I don't recall candidates being put forward to hold the board to account so I think it would be unfair if fans who tried to do just that were marginalised. I also think TRFB will have shot themselves in the foot if an agreement is made that fan groups should be ignored. If the board were to come out and say "from now on we will only be repying to queries put forward by TRFB" then fair enough but I'd be a little peeved if I was told "from now on we will only be replying to queries put forward by TRFB because the TRFB voted on it and it was their decision." I don't think it would be "fair enough", I would see it as unacceptable. That the RFB seem to be driving this, I see as perverse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Based on the limited information that is available, it seems reasonable to assume that less than 1,000 people voted out of a contrived electorate of around 23,000. It is also not unreasonable to assume that the number participating in these elections who actually made a conscious decision to join this scheme is less than a hundred, maybe even less than 50. This is the Assembly 2.0. The original claimed to speak for 35,000 and now its wee brother is claiming to speak for 23,000. The original was a farce and this is farce 2.0. Incredibly, at it first meeting, this self-styled 'democratic' group came up with a suggestion that certain other fan groups should be excluded from meeting the club. This fan board appears to have less people who actually joined it directly than the RST, RF and SOS. Perhaps the club should be meeting with those groups - but not the tiny rump that is this shambolic fan board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruff 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I don't think it would be "fair enough", I would see it as unacceptable. That the RFB seem to be driving this, I see as perverse. I agree. It would be unacceptable, what I meant by fair enough is that it would have been the boards decision and we would rightly be disgusted by it. TRFB putting this forward would be giving the board 'an out' on the matter. It's ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The constituency was approx 23,000 and I don't have the breakdown of the voting numbers but I know I got 49% of the vote in a 3 person race and won by 22% (the other two candidates combined got 51%). Can you answer Hildy's question. how many were defaulted into membership via season ticket purchase and how many paid to become members? If you don't know the answer can you raise it at the next meeting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts