Rangers First board candidates

[WATP_Greg 0]

There was no intent to mislead, Greg; most of the candidates stated Twitter names but my statement is the only one that shows my web forum names. Perhaps you should have asked RF or SD to amend your statement accordingly.

 

Its your statement I had issue with - you stated something which was incorrect as fact (that people did not disclose their forum names) with the obvious connotations being that such individuals were being dishonest. I think that's unfair and I assume you withdraw your initial point.

 

If you posted your twitter name to SDS I'm sure it would have taken precedence over your forum one.

[craig 5,195]

The difference with respect is that I questioned the fact that certain candidates may have a conflict of interest or be in receipt of hospitality which may lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organization or of the member has been compromised.

 

I did not make any personal attacks on any candidate in the election, nor would I.

 

It is in essence the same thing. A personal attack is being made so as to convince people to not vote for other candidates.

 

Bringing up conflicts of interest is doing the exact same thing.

 

As someone who has acted as Secretary for a number of organisations you will be more than well aware of both Roberts Rules for meetings and the very easy manner in which conflicts of interest are resolved. Anyone with a conflict on any particular topic simply recuses themselves from discussion of said topic, in most cases removing themselves from the meeting room so as to remove any doubt about conflicts of interest.

 

Receiving hospitality should only become a cause for concern AFTER they have been elected to the RF board. Receiving hospitality at this point should mean nothing.

 

I believe you are being disingenuous Alan in an attempt to garner votes for yourself and/or see others retain fewer votes.

[craig 5,195]

There was no intent to mislead, Greg; most of the candidates stated Twitter names but my statement is the only one that shows my web forum names. Perhaps you should have asked RF or SD to amend your statement accordingly.

 

Why is it even relevant ?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Its your statement I had issue with - you stated something which was incorrect as fact (that people did not disclose their forum names) with the obvious connotations being that such individuals were being dishonest. I think that's unfair and I assume you withdraw your initial point.

 

If you posted your twitter name to SDS I'm sure it would have taken precedence over your forum one.

 

I am happy to accept the first part of that Greg and apologise unreservedly for the error and any offence.

 

I wrongly inferred that the fact that no other candidate's statement indicated a web forum name meant that they had not put names on the form, which clearly was not correct in your case at least. But I think it's an error rather than a deliberate omission by SDS, one which IMHO you should ask to be corrected.

 

I declared a business Twitter name that I never use for any football matter; so asked for it to be omitted.

 

Trust this clarifies.

Edited February 16, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It is in essence the same thing. A personal attack is being made so as to convince people to not vote for other candidates.

 

Bringing up conflicts of interest is doing the exact same thing.

 

As someone who has acted as Secretary for a number of organisations you will be more than well aware of both Roberts Rules for meetings and the very easy manner in which conflicts of interest are resolved. Anyone with a conflict on any particular topic simply recuses themselves from discussion of said topic, in most cases removing themselves from the meeting room so as to remove any doubt about conflicts of interest.

 

Receiving hospitality should only become a cause for concern AFTER they have been elected to the RF board. Receiving hospitality at this point should mean nothing.

 

I believe you are being disingenuous Alan in an attempt to garner votes for yourself and/or see others retain fewer votes.

 

I disagree with you on both counts Craig.

 

Since the entire business of RF is to purchase shares and fund other areas in Rangers FC, I would contend that it would be more or less impossible for any person elected to the Board who has a conflict of interest through financial involvement with the Club or is an employee of the Club to take part in any board discussion so it would be impossible for such a person to function as a Director of RF.

[craig 5,195]

I disagree with you on both counts Craig.

 

Since the entire business of RF is to purchase shares and fund other areas in Rangers FC, I would contend that it would be more or less impossible for any person elected to the Board who has a conflict of interest through financial involvement with the Club or is an employee of the Club to take part in any board discussion so it would be impossible for such a person to function as a Director of RF.

 

Given the Club are actually amenable to fan shareholdings I don't see how it would be an issue.

 

RF can only "fund other areas of the Club" should the Club accept such funding. So where is the conflict ? I would argue that the conflict is perceived as much as it is real.

 

With regarding share ownership I am not sure where the conflict is there - Gough can own shares in his own right whilst still being an ambassador. RF can purchase shares in the open market, assuming that there are shares available. So where is the conflict - regards to shareholding RF presumably want to purchase as much as they can, so I am not sure what would need to be discussed there.

 

Admittedly, I am typing busily without proper thought process.

 

I'm not advocating Gough by the way - just that I don't see how it is such a big deal.

 

Still looks to me like mischief-making for your own benefit. Sadly, that is the view that I have on your whole campaign BH. That it has been a "win at all costs" campaign which began in an underhanded manner and hasn't really looked like getting any better. You have been called up on misinformation on more than one occasion in the last week - that in itself should give voters cause for concern on whether you can be trusted to be accurate with information entrusted to you.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Share purchase is an obvious area where a conflict would arise for James Blair at least and I am given to undestand already has arisen in the past.

 

I believe there was a discussion about going into the market to buy shares at a certain price which JB argued against on the basis it might lower the value of the Club.

 

Would you not agree that that was a conflict of interest between the objectives of RFB and the Club?

[SteveC 150]

Anyone know why he's withdrawn?

 

Perhaps he's read one or more of the threads on the subject, as they are enough to make one lose the will to live far less just withdraw.

[craig 5,195]

Share purchase is an obvious area where a conflict would arise for James Blair at least and I am given to undestand already has arisen in the past.

 

I believe there was a discussion about going into the market to buy shares at a certain price which JB argued against on the basis it might lower the value of the Club.

 

Would you not agree that that was a conflict of interest between the objectives of RFB and the Club?

 

That would make sense. However, in such an instance he recuses himself from the discussion - James Blair of all people given his professional background, should have more than a hands-on knowledge of what would constitute a conflict of interest.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

That would make sense. However, in such an instance he recuses himself from the discussion - James Blair of all people given his professional background, should have more than a hands-on knowledge of what would constitute a conflict of interest.

 

You would certainly think so.