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

[buster. 4,812]

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.

 

Another honest mistake or oversight.

 

I remember Brian Stockbridge having problems with the wording on resolution 10.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Another honest mistake or oversight.

 

I remember Brian Stockbridge having problems with the wording on resolution 10.

 

I didn't make the mistake, the person who took the Minutes made the mistake.

[buster. 4,812]

I didn't make the mistake, the person who took the Minutes made the mistake.

 

I think it appears to be a mistake by he who wrote up the minutes, followed by an oversight from youself when you later offered ammendments.

 

As I said, it can happen to the best of us.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think it appears to be a mistake followed by an oversight by he who wrote up the minutes and you, who later offered ammendments, respectively.

 

As I said, it can happen to the best of us.

 

I think your reply might make more sense if you were to move the comma to between "ammendments" (and) "respectively". Actually reading your sentence again the word "respectively" is redundant. The sentence makes perfect sense with a period after "amendments", which only has two "m"'s BTW.

 

If you were to do that I think I might be forced to agree with you but that might also be a mistake or at least a lapse in judgement on my part.

[buster. 4,812]

I think your reply might make more sense if you were to move the comma to between "ammendments" (and) "respectively". Actually reading your sentence again the word "respectively" is redundant. The sentence makes perfect sense with a period after "amendments", which only has two "m"'s BTW.

 

If you were to do that I think I might be forced to agree with you but that might also be a mistake or at least a lapse in judgement on my part.

 

My grammer is p**h but it's an honest mistake that comes from a poor education.

I thank you for the now nightly lesson. However, it is ironic that I get my lessons when you seem to 'run out of things to say' !

 

 

My old Grandmother used to tell me that one favour deserved another and perhaps in return, I could offer you some lessons in how to sniff out those characters taking advantage of Rangers. It's just that it hasn't been your strong point and I'd have thought it might be useful if you were prepared to harbour such thoughts or consider such possibilities.

Edited November 6, 2014 by buster.

[Rangersitis 0]

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).

 

Are you referring to the proposal of 'kid on fan groups being swept aside' made by dunny?

[Zappa 0]

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.

 

In other words, you sent an email to someone at Rangers and you received confirmation that that they had passed on the request/invite/suggestion to someone else?

 

Did they tell you who it had been passed on to?

 

It might get as far as Llambias if you're lucky, but I doubt very much that this request will even reach Ashley's secretary.

[Hildy 0]

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.

 

Interesting.

 

Tell me, how many members of this new fan group are there? How many joined independently and paid a fee? How many became part of it simply because they had a season ticket?

 

How many voted in the elections for fan representatives? What percentage of the membership voted in the elections?

 

The original Assembly came along and claimed to speak for 35,000 Rangers fans, but people didn't join it. They were 'defaulted' into it. How many were 'defaulted' into this new group?

 

Can we have a complete breakdown of the voting numbers, please - both numbers of votes and percentages - for all candidates?

 

Thanks.

[forlanssister 3,061]

. 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'm not sure that claim can bears scrutiny, I can only comment for my own category but only a total of 683 votes were cast in the disabled category though I concede when it comes to the disabled there's a general "who gives a flying f*&k" attitude that pervades through all sections of the club, supporters included.

 

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%"

 

I think that there's an argument that history may well be repeating itself there.

 

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.

 

We too on the RFB have to earn credibility and not take it as granted, the size of the electorate becomes moot and we fail if they don't engage in the process.

 

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.

 

That runs counter to the desire to lengthen the term of members from the present term of one year stated in the constitution to one of two years (though I concede no decision has been made).

 

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).

 

I can confirm that I did not submit the minutes nor were they taken from my notes, I can also confirm that whoever did supply them managed to do so better than I would have.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread I think there is method available that will assist in keeping an accurate minute that would satisfy all members and provide more clarity for the fans.

[Guest Somos La Gente]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

I just cant understand the need for the RFB to ask in its inaugural meeting, that RFC dont talk to some other Rangers fans. What is the point in that? Why does it care?

 

As FS has stated, I think there is also an acute case of history repeating itself here with regard to self-proclaimed self-importance. based on weak and unsubstantiated arguments relating to size of "constituencies".

 

As someone who has had a keen interest in such things (relating to Rangers) over many years and being an avid supporter of fans groups having constructive relations with the club, I have to say I just dont like the tone but most of all, the smell of it.

 

It needs to be sorted quickly so I hope there are enough enlightened RFB members on the team to nip this in the bud.

 

p.s. to FS, I agree that most people probably dont really give much thought to what your needs are unless/until they are personally affected or impacted. That said, most would be quite happy and/or pleased that your category has a voice and nobody would wish you anything but progress.