Stimpy 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 He has already stated that he agrees with the proposal. To now turn back on that, in the face of criticism on Gersnet, would only succeed in him alienating the wee ragers over on RM. Mr Harris has made his bed on this particular issue. if so, I'd like to know how members make their own proposals to the RFB? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 You've stated that the RFB will discuss the proposal further. So, I'm not asking who proposed it, I'm asking will you stand against it and propose to drop the idea? NO I have not stated any such thing. There is no such proposal so far as I am aware. The proposal was that the Board do not communicate directly in future with unelected leaders of groups. At the last meeting it was agreed to put this to the directors. As I was at great pains to point out there are a number of groups who have properly elected leaders who would not be excluded by the proposal. I agree with the proposal and I have also explained why I agree with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 if so, I'd like to know how members make their own proposals to the RFB? By emailing them, which results in absolutely no transparency as emails can be very easily ignored (and no doubt will be). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 if so, I'd like to know how members make their own proposals to the RFB? By sending emails to the addresses published on the site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 This could the most important post in this thread. Great advice and will help bridge gaps. Ahh, but would they agree to talks with organisations who have links to groups who are under the control of brutal, totalitarian dictators? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 He has already stated that he agrees with the proposal. To now turn back on that, in the face of criticism on Gersnet, would only succeed in him alienating the wee ragers over on RM. Mr Harris has made his bed on this particular issue. I think this particular thread has been excellent regards reasoned debate on the matters at hand. The strength of feeling generated on this issue in what is a reasoned and often relatively mild online community should be carefully considered. All RFB members might be advised to wade through it for an appreciation of what is being said and the arguments being made. At the root of it, the issue is that the RFB should act in the fans interests first and foremost. To act in the club's interests regards the voice/lines of communication of fansgroups would be perverse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 I agree with that, and would enhance it further by saying that, at the earliest possible opportunity, the RFB arranges meetings with the main fans groups like the RST and Association, to discuss mutually relevant topics for debate with the club, and seek a way of working together when the need arises, while being completely independant of each other and free to continue to do their own body of work for their members. The RFB should be mindful that both the RST and Association's members have actually went out of their way to be members of those organisations, which are both fully democratic with regular meetings and elections, not co-opted into membership by purchase of a ST. If there has even been 200 people who bought the £25 package to enable them to vote in this I will be absolutely stunned, which means the RFB is actually the least democratically elected board of the three. Whilst I have tried to explain why SB has the proposal wrong, I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion. On a personal level I have already offered to attend any RSA meeting where the subject of away tickets is discussed and indeed I have offered to attend individual branch or group meetings or travel on buses (at my own peril!) to try to get feedback and answer any questions. Indeed I could a good ear bashing on Tuesday. I am more than happy to promote this collectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The proposal was that the Board do not communicate directly in future with unelected leaders of groups. At the last meeting it was agreed to put this to the directors. As I was at great pains to point out there are a number of groups who have properly elected leaders who would not be excluded by the proposal. I agree with the proposal and I have also explained why I agree with it. Then I would call on all members of the RFB who agreed to this to resign their positions as they are clearly attempting to restrict fan access to directors and clearly allowing their own petty agendas to dictate their views rather than attempting to represent all fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 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. You attempt to dismiss the point by claiming that small groups of, say, 2 people would not have any credibility. However size is not mentioned under the current proposal so surely as an RFB member you would equally support a small group as you would a large one? Does that mean that when you approached Rangers directors as a single person that you had no credibility? Are you suggesting with you emphasis of size of constituency that FF has a lot more credibility than Gersnet and they should be afforded more of a say if both had elected leaders? The RFB should not be agreeing to discuss this with the club and you have obviously lost a lot of credibility by doing so. Trying to limit supporters' voices should have instantly been dismissed as a proposition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 BH view on 16th December 2013 http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?60832-Rangers-Supporters-Trust-suspend-spokesman-over-improper-conduct/page17 #164 "I have suggested that a membership scheme would be one way of bringing fans together or at least expressing a collective, authoritative opinion. But that doesn't appear to be happening any time soon. If you were the current board (and I stress I am not picking sides here) where would you go to get the fans opinion: the Assembly, the RSA, the Trust, FF, Gersnet, Rangers Media etc, shareholders, some combination of the foregoing? None individually or collectively represent anything more than a minority of fans who go along on a Saturday. The nearest you might get is the season ticket holders (and who would represent them?) but even then you would be excluding a lot of people." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Who did you suggest this idea to (and when) ? Collective or partly collective ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts