Rangers First board candidates

[craig 5,195]

I have to admit that I am disappointed in BH.

 

Initially his "question" about the candidacy of Gough, McQuarrie et al and his "question" about the consultant being put forward seemed, on the face of it, to be someone who cared about the Club and cared about the Club doing the right thing. And whilst this may still be the case it is abundantly clear that there was, simultaneously, a personal agenda being pursued.

 

In an attempt to show to the people that "look at me, I know a fair amount of information about the Club that others don't and I am bringing it into the public domain so that I can question it and question whether it is appropriate, on behalf of the supporters" it is obvious that this was done with his own personal candidacy in mind.

 

What is also disappointing is that the accusations made against those seemingly running for positions was done a) by someone who themselves is running b) by someone who seems to champion "transparency" and then doesn't provide the same transparency themselves and c) with what now looks like a clear agenda to discredit other applicants whilst strengthening their own likelihood for election.

 

At the time BH was discrediting, or casting into doubt the appropriateness, of other candidates he really should have been saying "for clarity & transparency I have put forward my own name for a position on the Board". But instead he masked it all as appearing to be nothing more than an investigative fan looking out for everyone else's best wishes.

 

I personally have never liked dirty politicking and it disappoints me that BH seems to have taken this route.

 

Very disappointed.

[BEARGER 1,829]

I have to admit that I am disappointed in BH.

 

Initially his "question" about the candidacy of Gough, McQuarrie et al and his "question" about the consultant being put forward seemed, on the face of it, to be someone who cared about the Club and cared about the Club doing the right thing. And whilst this may still be the case it is abundantly clear that there was, simultaneously, a personal agenda being pursued.

 

In an attempt to show to the people that "look at me, I know a fair amount of information about the Club that others don't and I am bringing it into the public domain so that I can question it and question whether it is appropriate, on behalf of the supporters" it is obvious that this was done with his own personal candidacy in mind.

 

What is also disappointing is that the accusations made against those seemingly running for positions was done a) by someone who themselves is running b) by someone who seems to champion "transparency" and then doesn't provide the same transparency themselves and c) with what now looks like a clear agenda to discredit other applicants whilst strengthening their own likelihood for election.

 

At the time BH was discrediting, or casting into doubt the appropriateness, of other candidates he really should have been saying "for clarity & transparency I have put forward my own name for a position on the Board". But instead he masked it all as appearing to be nothing more than an investigative fan looking out for everyone else's best wishes.

 

I personally have never liked dirty politicking and it disappoints me that BH seems to have taken this route.

 

Very disappointed.

 

You have hit the nail on the head. When he first posted I was in agreement with him (theres a first!) as I also think there should be no conflict of interest by anyone purporting to represent the ordinary fan through any fans group in discussions with the club.

But it has all unraveled for BH over the past 24 hours, his politicking is not as good as he thought. When you look at everything he has been involved in it always ends with him no longer being involved after a short while, there is a common denominator here.

[buster. 4,808]

You have hit the nail on the head. When he first posted I was in agreement with him (theres a first!) as I also think there should be no conflict of interest by anyone purporting to represent the ordinary fan through any fans group in discussions with the club.

But it has all unraveled for BH over the past 24 hours, his politicking is not as good as he thought. When you look at everything he has been involved in it always ends with him no longer being involved after a short while, there is a common denominator here.

 

If you want real change you surely don't go with those who helped provide what you want to change from.

 

This is currently all a bit nasty but it's reality and we can only hope for something positive coming out the other end of the process that can be built upon.

[craig 5,195]

Whilst not giving my own personal opinion here, it does seem that BH carries a certain level of toxicity akin to Mark Dingwall's polarizing of the support too. Again, for clarity these aren't my own opinions, just my observations from the online fanbase.

 

If looking for a unified body to represent all the fans it is important to have people representing you that are not polarizing, at least at the outset otherwise you are immediately doomed to failure.

 

Sadly for BH, his apparent polarizing nature would be a significant deterrent to voting for him in the upcoming election.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that he is only doing what he feels is best. However, sometimes what is best is to step aside and allow others less controversial to take up the mantle of attempting to achieve fan unity.

[Fury 0]

Apologies for butting in as I'm not a member of RF but obviously those in charge following this election will be involved in ongoing fan talks so I do have some interest.

 

Two quick points.

 

Alan Harris has made an insinuation on RM that I attend board meetings of the club. That is untrue. I have never done so and I'm not sure what he hopes to gain by the insinuation.

 

Second and more importantly for the purpose of your discussion, Mr Harris is quoting rules in this thread that RF have not, as far as I understand, adopted. Supporters Direct are just running their election. RF are not members of SD as far as I know and even if they were would be under no obligation to adopt their rules. It would appear therefore that Mr Harris is quoting from a rulebook that doesn't actually apply to those standing. I've no idea why he would do that but given the comments I've referenced above it does seem he has some difficulty with accuracy.

[rea 0]

Apologies for butting in as I'm not a member of RF but obviously those in charge following this election will be involved in ongoing fan talks so I do have some interest.

 

Two quick points.

 

Alan Harris has made an insinuation on RM that I attend board meetings of the club. That is untrue. I have never done so and I'm not sure what he hopes to gain by the insinuation.

 

Second and more importantly for the purpose of your discussion, Mr Harris is quoting rules in this thread that RF have not, as far as I understand, adopted. Supporters Direct are just running their election. RF are not members of SD as far as I know and even if they were would be under no obligation to adopt their rules. It would appear therefore that Mr Harris is quoting from a rulebook that doesn't actually apply to those standing. I've no idea why he would do that but given the comments I've referenced above it does seem he has some difficulty with accuracy.

 

Far be it for me to agree with you...but in regards to SD you are entirely correct

[rjathomson85 0]

Good afternoon,

 

Apologies for butting in to what appears to be a hot debate! My name is Ryan Thomson and I am one of the 23 standing for election to the Rangers First board.

 

I am more than happy to answer / discuss / debate anything regarding my bid to be elected, my views on certain things etc etc.

 

What I would bring (which seems to be the hot word at the moment) is transparency. I'm just a normal fan like yourselves and I would bring from a directors position what I want as a RF member. Constant and continuous dialogue with the RF Members about what is going on.

 

On a few of the other hot topics at the moment - I would like RF to remain separate from other fans groups if a merger were to be put on the table. I would put that case forward, however what I would demand in the strongest of terms would be a poll of the RF members regarding such an important issue. The members must decide at the end of the day if Rangers First is to remain independent, or be a part of a fans group amalgamation.

 

I would like RF to continue with the current 95% / 5% split between share buying and administration costs. RF was created to obtain as large a shareholding within the club as possible and this would be the quickest route to doing so.

 

I live in Shetland, which is a piece away from Glasgow (14 hour boat journey to Aberdeen followed by 3 hour trainride, or 1.5 hour flight), so I don't get to as many games as I would like however I get down to as many games as possible. I am fully transparent, I have no hidden agendas, no history associated with any of the clubs directors / members, or any of the Rangers First directors.

 

As I said I am open to questions either on the public forum or contact me through Twitter.

 

Thank you for your time.

[Frankie 8,146]

Thanks for taking the time to post Ryan and we appreciate your candid response...

[andy steel 0]

I'm just a normal fan like yourselves

 

I resent the suggestion that I'm a normal fan. As prime hand-wringer, long-winded post writer, Spiers apologist and Nationalist flag waver on Rangers boards for over a decade, nothing could be further from the truth. It's this kind of inaccuracy blah blah blah splitter blah blah blah secret meetings in the board room blah blazers etc

 

Please take no notice, sometimes we have to let off a little steam.

 

Hats off to you for stepping forward and best of luck.

[Bluedell 5,329]

On a few of the other hot topics at the moment - I would like RF to remain separate from other fans groups if a merger were to be put on the table. I would put that case forward, however what I would demand in the strongest of terms would be a poll of the RF members regarding such an important issue. The members must decide at the end of the day if Rangers First is to remain independent, or be a part of a fans group amalgamation..

 

It was put to members and 97% voted in favour of the principle of merger. Are you not willing to support the views of the overwhelming majority of members?