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

[Rangersitis 0]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

Can you confirm this version of events, and if so, was there any dissent among the eleven board members? Thanks.

[Bluedell 5,356]

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?.

 

It's clearly an attempt to stifle the SoS. It's sad that personal agendas have been allowed to be brought into the RFB in what you correctly note as the inaugural meeting.

 

Why? Because they don't agree with their views, don't like the way that they put them across and/or don't like their associations.

 

It comes across as very personal and a dislike of the people involved.

[Bluedell 5,356]

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.

 

It clearly clarifys your views on SoS and explains why the issue was raised.

 

You can try and skirt round who it was aimed at but it was personalised as soon as the issue was raised at the meeting.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

Yes I did and no they didn't.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

I'm prepared to consider all possibilities.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

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%).

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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

 

There were a number of people who made similar comments.

[Frankie 8,186]

It clearly clarifys your views on SoS and explains why the issue was raised.

 

You can try and skirt round who it was aimed at but it was personalised as soon as the issue was raised at the meeting.

 

I'd also say it's a clear dig at Chris Graham and the UoF. Further, it seems as if size of the electorate is now a consideration as well, no matter if the body is constituted correctly.

 

It's a real pity the RFB allowed itself to become divisive in its first meeting but I'd hope the discussion in this thread will have focussed minds somewhat on the unsuitability of restricting engagement to one group.

[Frankie 8,186]

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%).

 

FS has suggested the disabled fans category received around 700 votes - the only number apparently available. Even if we say double that number voted in the other categories, it suggests that while the vote and scheme may be open to 23,000 fans (plus those who joined without a season book), there's a real problem with engagement or that 94-97% of your constituency didn't care about voting for some candidates.

 

I don't want to personalise this issue either but I don't see how those numbers make you any more legitimate a voice than anyone else.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

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.

 

I am not going to take issue with a fellow Board member on a public forum, so I will just make a few points to furhter clarify my view.

 

The "constituency" I was referring to was the electorate of 23,000 or so; however many of them voted is another matter.

 

I agree that the RFB has to earn its own credibility.

 

The suggestion to lengthen the term of office was not made by me it was made by Alan Fraser but I agree with it because as things stand the first term is only October 14 to June or July 15 and IMHO that is a very short term for any Board especially a new one. IF and as you say no decision has been made, such a proposal were to be made and agreed by the Club then the first term would still be less than two years. I will be proposing some method of rolling elections thereafter to provide some degree of continuity and avoid a completely fresh Board being elected every time.