forlanssister 3,050 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 The RFB need to be proactive in their responses and not wait around. They should be leading things and not sitting at the back. I concur. Could this thread be split from the top of the page, so it can be discussed on it's own merits pertinent to the proposed security/loan? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Absolutely nothing.well the group must feel it can be justified? why else ask for clarifacation of the position? the fan board is there to pass along fan consensus is it not? has the fans outrage and refusal to accept this move under any circumstances been passed to the board? have the fan board explained we want ashley out? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Since it is clear that the fans are totally opposed to this course of action, the RFB are failing in their constitutional duty if they do not convey these views to the Board. Asking for "clarification" of something that is abundantly clear already is nonsense. Furthermore the RFB should call for the resignation of the Chairman of the Board in view if his breach of previous commitment not to grant security over Ibrox. Then we would see if the entire RFB was accused of not acting in the best interests of the Club and removed or abolished. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Not angry at you, mate, as you obviously had no say in it, but am angry at whoever came up with that crap. The RFB need to be proactive in their responses and not wait around. They should be leading things and not sitting at the back. Regards 'political matters', the RFB hasn't been designed to be able to cause 'public problems' for the RIFC or TRFC boards, ones that might lead the broader fanbase to issues, pertinent questions and possible subseqent action(s). Edited January 15, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I concur., So what are you doing about it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Could this thread be split from the top of the page, so it can be discussed on it's own merits pertinent to the proposed security/loan? Done from coolk's original question including all responses. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Since it is clear that the fans are totally opposed to this course of action, the RFB are failing in their constitutional duty if they do not convey these views to the Board. Asking for "clarification" of something that is abundantly clear already is nonsense. Furthermore the RFB should call for the resignation of the Chairman of the Board in view if his breach of previous commitment not to grant security over Ibrox. Then we would see if the entire RFB was accused of not acting in the best interests of the Club and removed or abolished. Why don't you put these questions through the officIal channel http://www.rangers.co.uk/fans/fans-board. since Rangers will only deal with RFB (which you agreed with), I suggest you email a member. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Since it is clear that the fans are totally opposed to this course of action, the RFB are failing in their constitutional duty if they do not convey these views to the Board. Asking for "clarification" of something that is abundantly clear already is nonsense. Furthermore the RFB should call for the resignation of the Chairman of the Board in view if his breach of previous commitment not to grant security over Ibrox. Then we would see if the entire RFB was accused of not acting in the best interests of the Club and removed or abolished. To think some wanted to restrict all communication with the club to the RFB. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 So what are you doing about it? You know full well there's a protocol to follow. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Since it is clear that the fans are totally opposed to this course of action, the RFB are failing in their constitutional duty if they do not convey these views to the Board. Asking for "clarification" of something that is abundantly clear already is nonsense. Furthermore the RFB should call for the resignation of the Chairman of the Board in view if his breach of previous commitment not to grant security over Ibrox. Then we would see if the entire RFB was accused of not acting in the best interests of the Club and removed or abolished. Did he actually state that? Anything I remember was worded in a way that can give them wriggle room. "We have no intention to...." was one example, from back in May, I believe. Oh aye, this isn't all about you. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.