Round and round the garden: Supporters representation games continue...

[Frankie 8,150]

Perhaps it's my own lack of quality reading material recently but after referencing one nursery rhyme in relation to the phoney sectarianism war in Scotland a couple of weeks back, it seems convenient - if rather disheartening - to quote another today.

 

The most common modern form of the poem in the article title is as follows:

 

Round and round the garden

Went a teddy bear.

One step, two step,

Tickle you under there.

 

This originates from The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes and is accompanied by various actions, by the adult on the child or the child on the adult. Ultimately after a short pause before the final line, they launch a (not altogether unexpected) tickle under the arm. Simple fun and I'd be surprised if any of us hadn't played one of the parts over the years.

 

Why the relevance you ask? Well, the obvious teddy bear analogy aside, it seems every single year the Rangers support seems to enjoy dancing in circles when it comes to the progress of its representative groups. And, just as you think we may be getting somewhere, the 'tickle' arrives - though in our case it's definitely expected and certainly more unpleasant in nature.

 

To bring everyone up to speed, we're now into 2016 and the club is currently six months into facilitating negotiations between the various existing fan groups “to create one overarching organisation/body that would encompass all the positive aspects within the various supporters groups.” Further they state such a body would be “made up of democratically elected representatives” and “would operate independently of the Club whilst working collaboratively with it.” This all seems sensible on the face of it and members of each existing group involved in the discussions voted overwhelming for such dialogue - though any final agreement would clearly need to come with the acceptance of a proposal that is still a few months away it seems. Round and round the garden we go...

 

In the interim, one of the main groups, Rangers First (a popular share purchase vehicle with substantial holdings in the club) is currently holding board member elections with over 20 candidates displayed on their website for possible selection. Those applying have a varied background, include a former MP, a former Rangers captain and a former referee along with a solicitor and Glasgow University chaplain both already closely associated with the club. There are also at least three applicants who've previously been involved with other supporters groups. Ergo, it's safe to say the expertise in the candidate list is wide-ranging and of an impressive enough quality. One step, two step...

 

Unfortunately, as is the way with elements of the Rangers support (online at least), the background of each nominee is soon pored over in great detail. That in itself is healthy enough - the organisation deals with huge sums of supporter cash - but if we delve that little bit deeper, the casual observer soon realises there's games being played. One candidate is questioning the conflict of interest of others while several more are looking for pledges to avoid such issues - calling for transparency, whilst failing at the same time to acknowledge their creation of another company which may challenge Rangers First (or indeed any new group) in the future. Disappointing and confusing doesn't quite begin to describe such revelations - not to mention the undisguised glee of some critics. A tickle under there...?

 

First things first, I think Rangers First have to deal with this promptly and with complete transparency. Not only do they need to be clear when it comes to conflicts of interest (this is a fair point, no matter how it is made), each board applicant needs to offer their own individual clarity when it comes to any possible fan group consolidation. Are they prepared to fall on their swords if/when this happens? No problem if not, but I think the voters should be aware of their opinion in advance.

 

Ultimately the usual arguments above comes down to trust. Rangers supporters have been let down repeatedly by those involved with the club in recent years and it's hardly a surprise that we want to avoid similar problems in the future, especially if we're to be involved in the decision-making. Unfortunately, as much as board representation may help in that sense, it could also hinder us if the vehicle is badly thought out. In that sense, is it wise to have just one group? And, if there is, surely it makes sense to avoid allegations of cronyism - however undeserved they may be? When the plan for a single group is finally presented, it will have to do a lot to satisfy concerns in that respect.

 

In a general sense, I doubt many fans are against such consolidation but, as I remarked in WATP magazine last summer, if we’re to truly progress the idea, it will require a maturity and humility that is often difficult to find in a support that remains as volatile as ever. The events of the last few days suggests such qualities remain difficult to find and the Machiavellian-type problems promised board representation can bring will only increase as a new single group edges closer. With that in mind, we not only need to question the process, platform and candidates but our own contribution too. None of us are perfect and we should remember that when criticising others.

[rea 0]

Perhaps it's my own lack of quality reading material recently but after referencing one nursery rhyme in relation to the phoney sectarianism war in Scotland a couple of weeks back, it seems convenient - if rather disheartening - to quote another today.

 

The most common modern form of the poem in the article title is as follows:

 

Round and round the garden

Went a teddy bear.

One step, two step,

Tickle you under there.

 

This originates from The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes and is accompanied by various actions, by the adult on the child or the child on the adult. Ultimately after a short pause before the final line, they launch a (not altogether unexpected) tickle under the arm. Simple fun and I'd be surprised if any of us hadn't played one of the parts over the years.

 

Why the relevance you ask? Well, the obvious teddy bear analogy aside, it seems every single year the Rangers support seems to enjoy dancing in circles when it comes to the progress of its representative groups. And, just as you think we may be getting somewhere, the 'tickle' arrives - though in our case it's definitely expected and certainly more unpleasant in nature.

 

To bring everyone up to speed, we're now into 2016 and the club is currently six months into facilitating negotiations between the various existing fan groups “to create one overarching organisation/body that would encompass all the positive aspects within the various supporters groups.” Further they state such a body would be “made up of democratically elected representatives” and “would operate independently of the Club whilst working collaboratively with it.” This all seems sensible on the face of it and members of each existing group involved in the discussions voted overwhelming for such dialogue - though any final agreement would clearly need to come with the acceptance of a proposal that is still a few months away it seems. Round and round the garden we go...

 

In the interim, one of the main groups, Rangers First (a popular share purchase vehicle with substantial holdings in the club) is currently holding board member elections with over 20 candidates displayed on their website for possible selection. Those applying have a varied background, include a former MP, a former Rangers captain and a former referee along with a solicitor and Glasgow University chaplain both already closely associated with the club. There are also at least three applicants who've previously been involved with other supporters groups. Ergo, it's safe to say the expertise in the candidate list is wide-ranging and of an impressive enough quality. One step, two step...

 

Unfortunately, as is the way with elements of the Rangers support (online at least), the background of each nominee is soon pored over in great detail. That in itself is healthy enough - the organisation deals with huge sums of supporter cash - but if we delve that little bit deeper, the casual observer soon realises there's games being played. One candidate is questioning the conflict of interest of others while several more are looking for pledges to avoid such issues - calling for transparency, whilst failing at the same time to acknowledge their creation of another company which may challenge Rangers First (or indeed any new group) in the future. Disappointing and confusing doesn't quite begin to describe such revelations - not to mention the undisguised glee of some critics. A tickle under there...?

 

First things first, I think Rangers First have to deal with this promptly and with complete transparency. Not only do they need to be clear when it comes to conflicts of interest (this is a fair point, no matter how it is made), each board applicant needs to offer their own individual clarity when it comes to any possible fan group consolidation. Are they prepared to fall on their swords if/when this happens? No problem if not, but I think the voters should be aware of their opinion in advance.

 

Ultimately the usual arguments above comes down to trust. Rangers supporters have been let down repeatedly by those involved with the club in recent years and it's hardly a surprise that we want to avoid similar problems in the future, especially if we're to be involved in the decision-making. Unfortunately, as much as board representation may help in that sense, it could also hinder us if the vehicle is badly thought out. In that sense, is it wise to have just one group? And, if there is, surely it makes sense to avoid allegations of cronyism - however undeserved they may be? When the plan for a single group is finally presented, it will have to do a lot to satisfy concerns in that respect.

 

In a general sense, I doubt many fans are against such consolidation but, as I remarked in WATP magazine last summer, if we’re to truly progress the idea, it will require a maturity and humility that is often difficult to find in a support that remains as volatile as ever. The events of the last few days suggests such qualities remain difficult to find and the Machiavellian-type problems promised board representation can bring will only increase as a new single group edges closer. With that in mind, we not only need to question the process, platform and candidates but our own contribution too. None of us are perfect and we should remember that when criticising others.

 

Conflicts of Interest are a legal issue and are dealt with by the sitting board concerned, normally by declaration of any conflict relating to the agenda to be discussed at that board meeting.

For whatever reason the phrase "you've got a conflict of interest" appears to be being used as an equivalent to "you cannot and should not stand for election to RF"

 

This is simply wrong, and in some cases seems to be being used by some candidates to malign others...i suspect this strategy is proving to be entirely transparent, now, to those with votes and could well now be on the way to spectacularly backfire

 

There are well established recusal processes for a board member to remove themselves from any discussion for which a conflict occurs.

 

the reality is that in most well functioning boards even though a member may declare an interest to a discussion the rest of the board is normally still confident in the character of the individual concerned to work in an unbiased way.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

Can somebody clarify for somebody who's not been paying enough attention, is the proposed merger of RST and RF at the club's behest or is this just something the execs of the two bodies decided would improve fan clout?

If it's the latter, is it worth the hassle? As long as fans are buying shares it doesn't really matter how and at least two bodies allows supporters to take a look at this emerging clusterfuck at RF and go somewhere else. And if it's the former, it's not their business is it?

[Frankie 8,150]

Can somebody clarify for somebody who's not been paying enough attention, is the proposed merger of RST and RF at the club's behest or is this just something the execs of the two bodies decided would improve fan clout?

If it's the latter, is it worth the hassle? As long as fans are buying shares it doesn't really matter how and at least two bodies allows supporters to take a look at this emerging clusterfuck at RF and go somewhere else. And if it's the former, it's not their business is it?

 

All groups are discussing it and it's merely a concept right now. At some point a proposal will be put forward and only then will the members of each group decide whether to proceed.

 

In many ways, I don't think it's an RST v RF thing - more just an attempt to rationalise the plethora of groups out there (there are around ten) into one independent body capable of working with the club.

 

As said that sounds agreeable but as we're seeing already, it may not be workable.

[der Berliner 3,245]

Wonder whether it is not best to have the groups address "a board" or just a couple of people who act as mediators between club and support, people unattached to any of the groups? Say Brian Laudrup, Neil McCann, Jörg Albertz, the old SFL-Chief or the like, someone all are comfortable with to convey the interests and demands of the support. At least at first. I for one can't exactly see enough harmony among the current folk leading the groups to come to any solution this year ... or next. But maybe that's just me.

[craig 5,195]

Conflicts of Interest are a legal issue and are dealt with by the sitting board concerned, normally by declaration of any conflict relating to the agenda to be discussed at that board meeting.

For whatever reason the phrase "you've got a conflict of interest" appears to be being used as an equivalent to "you cannot and should not stand for election to RF"

 

This is simply wrong, and in some cases seems to be being used by some candidates to malign others...i suspect this strategy is proving to be entirely transparent, now, to those with votes and could well now be on the way to spectacularly backfire

 

There are well established recusal processes for a board member to remove themselves from any discussion for which a conflict occurs.

 

the reality is that in most well functioning boards even though a member may declare an interest to a discussion the rest of the board is normally still confident in the character of the individual concerned to work in an unbiased way.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

In my current employment we often have conflicts of interest in the boardroom due to the fact that our board members are employees of our shareholders who are also policyholders (I work in insurance). Any conflicts are easily dealt with by any conflicted party (particularly when discussing the merits of particular insurance claims) recusing themselves not only from the discussion but also vacating the boardroom until such discussion has been concluded. It really is not a difficult thing to handle.

 

Whilst I can appreciate some may not wish Gough to be elected (in part due to his relationship with Dave King, in part due to people not believing he brings the right expertise and other factors too) the simple fact of the matter is that if elected and a topic of discussion arose which would potentially conflict Gough (eg, RF decide to make a strong, negative statement about Dave King and Gough feels conflicted) then he simply recuses himself from even partaking in the debate.

 

Nothing simpler.

 

In my corporate environment if we disbarred anyone from becoming a board member due to potential conflicts of interest our Board would consist of exactly ZERO people.

 

Conflicts of interest happen - but the question is "should they be an automatic reason for disbarring or not electing someone" and the answer should be a resounding no. Any corporate vehicle worth its salt knows how to very easily handle conflicts of interest.

[craig 5,195]

Wonder whether it is not best to have the groups address "a board" or just a couple of people who act as mediators between club and support, people unattached to any of the groups? Say Brian Laudrup, Neil McCann, Jörg Albertz, the old SFL-Chief or the like, someone all are comfortable with to convey the interests and demands of the support. At least at first. I for one can't exactly see enough harmony among the current folk leading the groups to come to any solution this year ... or next. But maybe that's just me.

 

The problem with this is that Laudrup, McCann, Albertz etc would be getting asked to make multiple, differing requests of the Board.

 

Introducing them as mediators does nothing more than add an additional layer to an already burgeoning number of groups that the Club are dealing with.

[der Berliner 3,245]

Well, "mediator" may not be the right word, more like a few folk who recieve, order, and convey the groups' requests to the club, rather than each going directly to the club and having the club organize it. Thus you would stop having 10 groups sending stuff, with 8 of 10 topics are the same but are demanded by different groups at a different time.

[craig 5,195]

Well, "mediator" may not be the right word, more like a few folk who recieve, order, and convey the groups' requests to the club, rather than each going directly to the club and having the club organize it. Thus you would stop having 10 groups sending stuff, with 8 of 10 topics are the same but are demanded by different groups at a different time.

 

I'm confused dB to be honest. Putting in these people does nothing in terms of reducing the requests. You are, in essence, suggesting that former players eg, Albertz, is nothing more than a paper pushing secretary. All he would be doing is amalgamating any questions from each and every fan group, presenting the questions to the Club and then receiving the response and distributing it back to the fan groups.

 

As I said, it just adds an unnecessary layer to an already cumbersome process.

[Scott7 5,156]

McCann's a tim, Laudrup never tried a leg his last season, Albertz ... erm ... erm ... ach, I'll think of something. See what I mean, dB?

 

I despair at times