Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Firstly I have private messgaed the moderator concerned regarding the reasons for such concern & implications. Secondly if you cannot see the potential minefield for FS in this - then thats disappointing. What I find disappointing is the way some of the online community verbally abuse FS and nobody ever defends him. When he was telling everyone the truth about Whyte he was called a tim/trouble maker. This cycle then repeated with Green and the succession of con men/incompetents we have had since. When he was trying to get the board to adhere to the law and provide details on their disgusting salaries and expenses as they led us into financial ruin, he was called a 'grass'. Yet none of this concerns you. What concerns you is criticism of those clearly lacking any individualistic, objective thought. Such people are enablers in the repeated destruction of our football club and they still lack the sense to see what is happening. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) What I find disappointing is the way some of the online community verbally abuse FS and nobody ever defends him. When he was telling everyone the truth about Whyte he was called a tim/trouble maker. This cycle then repeated with Green and the succession of con men/incompetents we have had since. When he was trying to get the board to adhere to the law and provide details on their disgusting salaries and expenses as they led us into financial ruin, he was called a 'grass'. Yet none of this concerns you. What concerns you is criticism of those clearly lacking any individualistic, objective thought. Such people are enablers in the repeated destruction of our football club and they still lack the sense to see what is happening. I think you will find SBA that some of us have defended him - please feel free to confirm with him. Furthermore you may not realise it - but thats exactly what Im doing here Edited February 2, 2015 by D'Artagnan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I haven't followed the thread so unsure who has abused who or made allegations that you're concerned over. Gonna read it now though! Like SBS is saying, FS deserves more credit for his work in helping fans see the light with regards to the people who are destroying Rangers. We need more like him. Private me on twitter or here if you like 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 dont remember posters being corrected elsewhere when unfairly deeming fs a traitor. could be wrong but thought i was part of a small minority those times. never seen much in regards to sites using the rangers name allowing the trolling of other fans sites to cause division getting much coverage either. guess different priorities. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) I think we have to focus on the next meeting of the RFB rather than debate individuals. There are understandably many doubts over the RFB and how it may be used and exploited by the RIFC/TRFC boards. We can list the motives behind those doubts but we have also seen actions from the RFB that have responded both to actions by RIFC and concerns of the general support. As we rumble towards a possible EGM, we need the RFB to make the very most out of their next meeting that will apparently have Derek Llambias and Barry Leach attending and to that end we will need to formulate questions and submit them by e-mail. As I see it, the test for the RFB as a body is to to ensure they receive transparent answers to all pertinent questions and that they don't allow the RIFC, TRFC and Rangers Retail Ltd directors (both DL & BL represent all three) to navigate their way through a meeting without due scrutiny, including secondary questions. If there are questions that may need some research doing before answering then they should be submitted prior to the meeting so as to give the directors time to have the full answers prepared. I feel we have reached a stage that will include the Ashley men and where the RFB will have to perform,...and perform well. Edited February 2, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 If FS wasn't invited then that's proof the rest of the board were not invited. I don't understand how you can reach that conclusion. Three people were at the meeting and another three are out of Scotland, including the Secretary Gary Gillan, so wouldn't have been able to attend at short notice. That leaves five: Christine Murdoch the Vice Chair, Billy Patterson, Zia Islam, Alan Fraser and William Gillan. Billy has already stated that he was not aweare of the meeting. I'm going to ask the others. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Christine Murdoch has confirmed that the meeting was restricted to three people and that she was invited but was unable to attend. I have sent a more detailed email to Gary Gillan with formal questions on the specifics. Edited February 2, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Christine Murdoch has confirmed that the meeting was restricted to three people and that she was invited but was unable to attend. I have sent a more detailed email to Gary Gillan with foraml questions on the specifics. So does that mean only 2 attended or did they have a substitute to parachute in , and if so why and who picked the initial 3 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 So does that mean only 2 attended or did they have a substitute to parachute in , and if so why and who picked the initial 3 I am gradually piecing this together. As I said earlier in the thread, it's my feeling that the Chair got the call from Llambias or someone on his behalf; CM has confirmed that only 3 were invited and she was one of the three (presumably the Chair, VC and someone in lieu of the Secretary). I have now verified that at least one other member apart from BP was not invited. That leads me to conclude that the Chair did some phoning around to get two people to go with him. That also leads me to conclude that what happened was contrary to the Constitution since the Chair does not have that power. I also understand that at least one member of the Board has or intends to express the same concerns. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 how can we ignore the individuals when one of them may well be sitting infront of a man she defamed in a few weeks asking him to help her constituents with issues. 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.