Minutes of the First Meeting of the Rangers Fans Board held on 6 October 2014

[Guest Somos La Gente]

 

What was proposed from elsewhere and what was supported by the Board on the night was that Rangers should not communicate with (the leaders of) unelected groups. Despite the criticism on this forum I agree with that.

Hi, I have spent ages reading this thread, very interesting actually.

 

Could you clarify which would groups would be elected groups and which would not? And if you are comfortable with the club speaking to leaders of elected groups?

 

Sorry if you have answered this, its been a long read.

[Hildy 0]

An in-house fan group can be very useful to a club hierarchy. A body of this kind, effectively gerrymandered into existence, will be more likely to knuckle under to club wishes than an entity which is under no obligation to the club.

 

If the club wants to remove an awkward member of the fan board, it will find a way to do it. If it identifies someone who hankers after influence, a bit of power and a club blazer, he or she will likely be easy to win over.

 

Billy Connolly once said that anyone who wants to be a politician should automatically be disqualified from ever being one, and while this is a bit harsh, we can probably understand where he is coming from.

 

The disastrous start made by this fan board has undermined it straight away. Mike Ashley will have no real interest in it unless he feels that he can exploit it, and of course, he may well do that.

 

From his point of view, it's good for nothing else.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

i would suggest that you run any future questions past a sensible forum to get a less jaundiced view.

 

this one for example.

 

Perhaps it would be easier to have a panel, like Question Time or better still lets amalgamate all the sensible forums.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Aye Mike Ashley is going to come up to a RFB meeting:ffs: His reord at Newcastle show us that he really cares what the fans think.

 

Well at this stage the point is that he's been asked and so has every director of the Club; so we'll soon see and then we can all make a judgement based on that.

 

Pretty soon I'm going to ask which of the directors (and Mr Ashley) have accepted the invitation attend. I don't want to let down my new friend Mr McLean.

[Zappa 0]

Well at this stage the point is that he's been asked and so has every director of the Club; so we'll soon see and then we can all make a judgement based on that.

 

Unless you (or anyone else for that matter!) ask someone personally you'll never know for sure that they've actually been asked, even if you're told they have been because that type of thing is like chain mail passed from one person to the next and inevitably binned or ignored by someone in the chain. That's one of the reasons why compartmentalization works well for those at the top of corporate pyramids, but not so well for those further down asking awkward questions.

[buster. 4,812]

An in-house fan group can be very useful to a club hierarchy. A body of this kind, effectively gerrymandered into existence, will be more likely to knuckle under to club wishes than an entity which is under no obligation to the club.

 

If the club wants to remove an awkward member of the fan board, it will find a way to do it. If it identifies someone who hankers after influence, a bit of power and a club blazer, he or she will likely be easy to win over.

 

Billy Connolly once said that anyone who wants to be a politician should automatically be disqualified from ever being one, and while this is a bit harsh, we can probably understand where he is coming from.

 

The disastrous start made by this fan board has undermined it straight away. Mike Ashley will have no real interest in it unless he feels that he can exploit it, and of course, he may well do that.

 

From his point of view, it's good for nothing else.

 

He will have his minions deal with these issues.

 

His spindoctor (Keith Bishop) will have been introduced to Toxic Jack (remit from Easdale block) and I'd have thought that Toxic will have been told to continue what he's doing regards spin/support due to his long experience misleading Bears and contacts/knowledge of the Scottiish media.

 

Toxic being part of the development of the RFB, more specifically how to make it work for the club's interests regards control and manipulation (ie.macro concept/see #215).

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Hi, I have spent ages reading this thread, very interesting actually.

 

Could you clarify which would groups would be elected groups and which would not? And if you are comfortable with the club speaking to leaders of elected groups?

 

Sorry if you have answered this, its been a long read.

 

Well, I thank you for doing me and the Board the courtesy of reading the thread. Thanks for the question.

 

Re-reading the passage you highlight, perhaps it would have been better phrased as the unelected leaders of groups or groups where this no election for leaders/office bearers.

 

I do not wish to personalise this issue, much as some would love me to do that; so I'm not going to name one group or another but there are several which have a constitution and hold elections for committees or boards and then have a due process to elect office bearers. I would say that the elected leaders of such groups have every right to be heard, although the Club might take a view depending on the size of their membership. Clearly, the RFB has the biggest constituency by a very long way, so it might get the most access and be regarded as the most legitimate but not the only legitimate voice of the fans or a group of the fans. The question that I will pose to the Directors is about their communication policy going forward. They may have a different view.

 

I'll give you a couple of examples. When I was on the Board of the RST, I think I am correct in saying that the actual membership most of the time was under 1,000 (believe it or not even as the Secretary I couldn't find out the true number); but when it came to negotiations with the Club or media comment, the figure was usually stated as about 1,500 (which included those who had not renewed up to the next AGM) or some much higher figure (5,000 I think) who at one time HAD BEEN members, the whole point being to gain more credence as a body worthy of recognition. 3% of those who attend matches sounds much better than less than 2%. Also when I was Chair of SDS, I well remember making a great faux pas, when asked by a Civil Servant how many fans we represented, I said "about 15,000, 10% of all the football fans in Scotland" (which I thought was a big number). To which came the retort, "what about the OTHER 90%"

 

So in my view representation is not only about democracy but also the size of the electorate. Somewhere in this or another recent thread, someone said something about a leader of a two-man group; even democratcially elected, such a leader may not command much credibility.

 

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. 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.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Unless you (or anyone else for that matter!) ask someone personally you'll never know for sure that they've actually been asked, even if you're told they have been because that type of thing is like chain mail passed from one person to the next and inevitably binned or ignored by someone in the chain. That's one of the reasons why compartmentalization works well for those at the top of corporate pyramids, but not so well for those further down asking awkward questions.

 

I take the point Zappa, whcih is why I made my request by email and I have an email confirmation that it has been actioned.

[Rangersitis 0]

Thanks for that ringing endorsement Mr McLean.

 

No that is not correct (that if a Rangers fan has not been elected by any fans group then that fan should not have the right to question what is happening within the club); that is not what I said.

 

What was proposed from elsewhere and what was supported by the Board on the night was that Rangers should not communicate with (the leaders of) unelected groups. Despite the criticism on this forum I agree with that.

 

I would reiterate yet again that any fan is free to raise any issue with any member of the Fans Board.

 

Once you have more experience of posting on here you will know that I have a reputation for trying to be as accurate and factual as possible, some call it pedantic; and when I make mistakes, folk around here are not slow to point them out.

 

I put forward the questions that I was asked to put forward. There were in fact no directors present when I put forward those questions. I assume you would be even more critical of other Board members who didn't put forward any questions? Or is a Board member who doesn't ask any questions somehow not paying lip service to the BoD; whereas one who asks questions that you regard as irrelevant is only doing so for self aggrandisement. What utter nonsense.

 

Lastly for your information, I am the person who asked within an hour or so of the Stock Exchange announcement being made on Monday, that Mr Ashley (and Mr Llambias) be invited to the next meeting of the Board. Why do you think I did that? Could the answer possibly just be that I want ask him about his plans for the Club?

 

If there was a stipulation made for unelected leaders, why did the minutes not stipulate that? As you studied the minutes and requested some amendments, why was that one crucial word not part of those amendments? A cynic may think that that omission was most opportune in helping to enable the RFB even greater powers once the detail was lost in the mists of time.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

If there was a stipulation made for unelected leaders, why did the minutes not stipulate that? As you studied the minutes and requested some amendments, why was that one crucial word not part of those amendments? A cynic may think that that omission was most opportune in helping to enable the RFB even greater powers once the detail was lost in the mists of time.

 

Well, RS, we all know that you are not a cynic.

 

I missed it, I'm not perfect, sometimes I make mistakes. But I know I said it at the meeting because it's in my handwritten notes and that is what was proposed on RM.

 

Both FS and I have agreed that the format and content of the Minutes leaves a lot to be desired and we have to accept our share of responsibility for that even although we did not take the Minutes (assuming FS was not the person who submitted notes to Rev MacQuarrie and I'll leave him to verify that one way or another).