craig 5,195 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 As Frankie said this morning, I was not able to go online yesterday due to personal matters which essentially kept me up 24 hours; the only thing I did in connection with the election was to sign up to the Pledge.Rangers First should be an independent community interest company, happy to assist the Club but able to be the eyes and ears of the ordinary fan, adopt an independent stance where necessary, to protect the club. The current board will not be here forever and Rangers First can protect Rangers for the future by continuing to grow its shareholding. No director of Rangers First should receive any remuneration from Rangers Football Club be it directly or indirectly through their employer. 95% of all donations received from Rangers First members should be spent on share purchases with 5% for administration costs. Rangers First should be run by its directors on behalf of its members with the three founding principles of Accountability, Consultation and Transparency. We feel in all these areas Rangers First could improve. I want to make it clear that notwithstanding the foregoing I am 100% committed to a single fans organisation. However, I share the view of some people that the merger talks appear to be proceeding with undue haste and are shrouded in secrecy which has given rise to various concerns about the outcome. As an RF member I have called on the existing Directors for more transparency about the talks in line with the above principles. I am also concerned that the Club may be exerting undue influence on the talks through the attendance of Director, John Gilligan, his former associate Malcolm Stenhouse in the role of Consultant, his friend Alan Fraser ostensibly representing the defunct Rangers Fans Board and Andy Kerr representing the defunct Assembly; all of whose roles in these matters appear tenuous at best. That said it will be for the RF members to decide how to proceed once the full proposals are published. I have skimmed through the pages since this morning and will review the rest later and respond where I think it is necessary or appropriate. Thank you for your patience. You have absolutely no idea whether the Club is exerting undue influence just because meetings are being attended by Club representatives. That statement, whilst I am sure is made genuinely, looks like posturing to me. Regardless, I actually think it wise to have the Club represented at these meetings - if we want a merger and we want the fan groups to have solid relationships with the Club then it makes sense that the Club can have some input. That doesn't mean that they will be part of ANY decision-making. Their involvement is more than likely as interested observers - which is nothing that doesn't happen at many corporate entity board meetings either. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I said as much on the FF thread. And then I re-read the John Bennett threads and decided I didn't have much sympathy at all. Ive just read the Bennett threads(thanks for link),Ihave to say i totally agree with you-----it was actually quite disturbing in a way!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Honest question, does anyone think that a supporters group merger would improve fan unity? I understand that there would never be complete harmony among our fans, much like any other club there are bound to be differences of opinion. Would be interesting to gauge a general consensus on here as to whether a supporters group merger would help matters any. It would help if those up for election in this vote and any other in the future, would say they would accept the majority vote and work to help those elected. At the moment some sound like the 45's of the SNP. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 You have absolutely no idea whether the Club is exerting undue influence just because meetings are being attended by Club representatives. That statement, whilst I am sure is made genuinely, looks like posturing to me. Regardless, I actually think it wise to have the Club represented at these meetings - if we want a merger and we want the fan groups to have solid relationships with the Club then it makes sense that the Club can have some input. That doesn't mean that they will be part of ANY decision-making. Their involvement is more than likely as interested observers - which is nothing that doesn't happen at many corporate entity board meetings either. Perhaps it would help if the Club commented. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Honest question, does anyone think that a supporters group merger would improve fan unity? I understand that there would never be complete harmony among our fans, much like any other club there are bound to be differences of opinion. Would be interesting to gauge a general consensus on here as to whether a supporters group merger would help matters any. There was an overwhelming majority of RF members who voted to explore the route to a merger. A merger would of course by definition help unity and only occur if members of groups voted for it. The main problem it would seem are some individuals, agendas and the inevitable ensuing division....although I think the number of these people is disproportionately lower to the noise they make. The division has been taken advantage of by Sir Duped, the allegedly fraudulent and others. The dark Machiavellian side of things has seen some on one side of a 'division' side with the 'bad guys' (previous regimes) which for me has been the main issue............and at times the 'noise' has been amplified by the Jack Irvines of this world. Going forwards I'd have thought Rangers supporters could agree a basic way forward with the good of the club in mind and elect directors to keep things right, including maintaining independence from the club. At the same time the club isn't an enemy, and if the agendas that some bring forward (or call it the simple dislike of individuals on the RIFC board) then they are free to join/leave/set-up another Judeas PF. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjathomson85 0 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 It would help if those up for election in this vote and any other in the future, would say they would accept the majority vote and work to help those elected. At the moment some sound like the 45's of the SNP. Hi Chilledbear, I have stated I would put forward my preference for RF to remain independent of other groups. However I have already gone on record, and stand by the fact I would without question go along with the majority vote of the RF members. Whatever the preference of the members, if the majority believe it to be in the best interests of RF to merge then I would fully accept that, and continue to give 100% for the benefit of the members. The fact that around 97% of members have voted to enquire further regarding a merger doesn't mean they would vote that way. Again though, it's the decision of the members. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Hi Chilledbear, I have stated I would put forward my preference for RF to remain independent of other groups. However I have already gone on record, and stand by the fact I would without question go along with the majority vote of the RF members. Whatever the preference of the members, if the majority believe it to be in the best interests of RF to merge then I would fully accept that, and continue to give 100% for the benefit of the members. The fact that around 97% of members have voted to enquire further regarding a merger doesn't mean they would vote that way. Again though, it's the decision of the members. If you are part of the 3%, do you expect to be elected ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 It's surprising when the membership vote by such a margin, so many standing for election are against. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) It's surprising when the membership vote by such a margin, so many standing for election are against. I think it to a degree that it reflects the general problem. Individuals that haven't really represented the majority. Edited February 12, 2016 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I think it to a degree that it reflects the general problem. Individuals that haven't really represented the majority. It looks to me that one Group means less chiefs. 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.