Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 very dangerous of alan to take a majority view from rm as his basis. Wonder if he went on FF and asked them what they thought . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Most of what you raised came from here http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=274274&hl ....and this from the minutes An increase in in away tickets for Season Ticket holders can only come at the expense of RSC's. Thanks for posting that link F'S. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever there to substantiate your claim that I suggested a change in the allocations between individuals and RSC's, far less an increase in away tickets for ST holders. In fact what I said was that "This goes back to the question of allocating tickets between individuals and buses; I will get more information on that. " This is born out by the other part of the Minute that you have highlighted which refers to the mention I made of having had a meeting with the TO Manager. So I ask again, who is it that is suggesting that I have made such a proposal? Edited November 5, 2014 by BrahimHemdani Added "So I ask again, who is it that is suggesting that I have made such a proposal?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I would love to see the rangers board ONLY recognise you and ur new colleagues and not respond or have any communication with the kid on fan groups... they should be swept aside now so we can all move forward. I would imagine that Rangers will see the RFB in the same light and increasingly refer fans issues to and from the RFB rather than other groups.... You imagine that Rangers would want to see the kid on fan groups swept aside, yet you still want to be a part of the RFB. That is a quite astonishing insight into how you have approached this. It really hasn't been a good couple of days for you, BH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Interesting to note in that thread that Bawsburst was influencing proceedings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,812 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 You imagine that Rangers would want to see the kid on fan groups swept aside, yet you still want to be a part of the RFB. That is a quite astonishing insight into how you have approached this. It really hasn't been a good couple of days for you, BH. Macro concept of RFB was always to marginalise 'awkward' fansgroups and make it easier for the RIFC/TRFC boards control and manage the fanbase. They'd probably like to have friendly office bearers on the RFB who would more or less share this particular objective , perhaps for their own reasons and look to help steer matters accordingly. Before the 2013 AGM, there were two main areas for the sp.ivs/sharks/whatever to get under control. 1. Executive control and 75% of the vote. 2. Supporters (ie. revenue stream). They were successful regards executive control although failed with the 75% and resolution 10. The supporters would be difficult but to partly address the matter, they (including Toxic) came up with the RFB. This was planned to serve them in several different ways. - Marginalise other fansgroups and centralise a body that the club would try to have 'under control'. - Use this as a perceived mandate when dealing with fans, media, shareholders. - Use successes within the micro issues to promote, justify and garner support for it going forward. In short a fansboard, occasionally for the fans but mainly for the club. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wrote the jist of the above months ago. All signs so far indicate that it is full steam ahead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 I appreciate the response BH, but after numerous attempts to clear up the mud surrounding one important and very specific issue, you still appear to be skirting around it and dodging questions. I asked the following questions regarding that one particular section: You've avoided answering it. Why not just tell us exactly what happened at the meeting regarding that section of the minutes instead of being vague? What exactly was said and by whom? Zappa, I'm honestly not sure what it is you are looking for that I haven't already clarified. I think it is also true to say that most people would just have answered by saying the Minutes are there, make of them what you will. I haven't hidden behind that type of excuse and I seem to be suffering because of my openness. If there was a Secretary, then these questions might be better addressed to that person. I am not the Secretary and I did not take the Minutes. I have published the amendments that I proposed and were accepted. But let me try once again: I raised the issue of representation as requested by the RSA & William Montgomery. Irene Munro gave a brief answer as minuted and I agreed a slightly expanded form of words with her on 7/8 October which I then emailed to Drew Roberton and William Montgomery. I also raised the suggestion put forward by RM that the Club cease communicating with unelected groups. Minutes state - "Suggested that Rangers do not meet with other fans groups now that we have the RFB in place". I have already said that there is an error here inasmuch as the word "unelected" is missing and I will seek to have that added when the Minutes come up for adoption at the next meeting. My recollection is that their was a murmur of support, there was no one who opposed the suggestion, and it was agreed to put this to the directors at the next meeting. This is confirmed in the Minutes - "Agreed to discuss with the Rangers Board of Directors as to what their plans should be going forward" I had item (1) in a copy email and item (3) in a note. I think the order in the Minutes is correct but at this stage I cannot be certain and neither am I certain that the items were raised consecutively. In any event as I have said previously there was no relationship between the two items as they came from different sources. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 Wonder if he went on FF and asked them what they thought . Fortunately I am barred from FF and VB for that matter as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,812 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Fortunately I am barred from FF and VB for that matter as well. I would have thought that to be unfortunate for someone on the fansboard with an open outlook, not too many skeletons in the cupboard and an objective to see right by all fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 I would have thought that to be unfortunate for someone on the fansboard with an open outlook, not too many skeletons in the cupboard and an objective to see right by all fans. I am not surprised that you might think so but I couldn't possibly agree. I am pretty sure that some members of the RFB are not active on any forums, I am active on two; I would be very surprised to learn that any are active on four; but in any event I do not think it is in any way necessary and it is certainly not a requirement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,812 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) I am not surprised that you might think so but I couldn't possibly agree. I am pretty sure that some members of the RFB are not active on any forums, I am active on two; I would be very surprised to learn that any are active on four; but in any event I do not think it is in any way necessary and it is certainly not a requirement. You misunderstood me and perhaps yourself. You said........... "Fortunately I am barred from FF and VB for that matter as well." ie. Fortunate that you don't have the opportunity or option, rather than it being a matter of overload/choice. Hence my comment ..............."I would have thought that to be unfortunate for someone on the fansboard with an open outlook, not too many skeletons in the cupboard and an objective to see right by all fans." Being active on 2 forums or having X,000 posts on Rangers messageboards could be construed as a plus for a fansboard member. However you probably wouldn't be well advised to mention being fortunate to have been barred from two messageboards because it might lead to someone asking why that is and would it affect your duties going forward. Edited November 6, 2014 by buster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts