BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I find it strange that you know all the names of the people from the RST and not the names of those from an organisation you are a member of. Why don't you raise any concerns with them? I would agree with you to the extent that I think that the members of each group should know who is representing them at these discussions and the individual groups should publicise that information. I am a member of RF and I will be making my opinion known. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 If there's one thing that's annoyed me over the last 15 years or so it's when folk's noses get put out of joint because they weren't at some meeting or a full report wasn't given. Sure we'd all like to have every detail of every subject but business doesn't work like that and you either trust the people involved to act properly or get active yourself. I don't know who's involved this time but I'm not overly fussy and I won't form an opinion until the final proposal is presented anyway. In any case, even if the final one-group proposal appears perfect, we can be damn sure an alternative group will again spring up quicker than you can say Monty Python. Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your argument I take the view that members of individual groups have a right to know who is representing them at these discussions. There may be more truth in your last point than you imagine. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) The Club is merely facilitating the talks but is not involved in the decision making process. Can you confirm that a former colleague of John Gilligan at Tennents, Malcolm Stenhouse, https://www.linkedin.com/in/malcolm-stenhouse-8338282 has been appointed by the Club as a consultant to advise on the merger, what part Ross Hendry is playing in these matters and who is remunerating them for their services? Edited February 9, 2016 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Apparently there was a high level meeting at Ibrox towards the end of last week attended by representatives of at least two Rangers fans' web forums. Can anyone say if Gersnet was invited or attended and if so what was on the agenda? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Presumably the boards of each of the organisations will send reps from the boards along to the meetings, and presumably these reps may change from meeting to meeting. Given the history of fan conflict, it seems that there is a fair amount of confidentiality at this point, which is fair enough. We just need to know the final outcome and not the minutiae of negotiations and who attended what meetings. Tend to agree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Can you confirm that a former colleague of John Gilligan at Tennents, Malcolm Stackhouse, has been appointed by the Club as a consultant to advise on the merger, what part Ross Hendry is playing in these matters and who is remunerating them for their services? I'm not saying any more about this Alan. You have come on here and Rangers Media to stir things, it's pretty obvious what you're doing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) I have named all the people who I have been told are involved. I am not involved and I don't know if the information I have been given is correct nor do I know any other names. It would appear from your other posts on this subject that are directly involved, so you would know who else is involved. I would think the biggest concern would be the involvement of the Club in what is supposed to be an independent Fans' Board, which is exactly what happened last time. If a new unified fans' group is going to work reasonably closely with the Club, then it would seem very prudent for that relationship to begin at the outset so that solid foundations and clear lines of communication are built and developed from square one. That's more or less exactly what was said about the Rangers Fans' Board. Given the drastically different circumstances, I don't see any tangible comparison whatsoever between the formation of the RFB and what is supposedly now being discussed regarding merging fans' groups. Edited February 9, 2016 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I'm not saying any more about this Alan. You have come on here and Rangers Media to stir things, it's pretty obvious what you're doing. I am trying to find out if the merger and the proposed unified board is truly independent of the Club. NB: I have corrected the name of the consultant at post #53. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Given the drastically different circumstances, I don't see any tangible comparison whatsoever between the formation of the RFB and what is supposedly now being discussed regarding merging fans' groups. That's true the circumstances are completely different but there is a remarkable comparison in some aspects e.g. the Club imposing the Constitution of the RFB and the Club appointing a consultant to "advise" on the merger proposals. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 That's true the circumstances are completely different but there is a remarkable comparison in some aspects e.g. the Club imposing the Constitution of the RFB and the Club appointing a consultant to "advise" on the merger proposals. You didn't have a problem with the RFB Constitution when you invoked it to what you perceived to be your own personal advantage behind the backs of every other RFB Board Member did you? Your vanity blinded you to the fact that you sealed your own fate with your own actions. If you truly believe in a RFB how ever it's constructed then the best thing you could do is stay well away from it. 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.