Jump to content

 

 

Chris Graham and Canada?


Recommended Posts

But the time to start that process is now , not 6 months or a year later , by that time no end of damage could be dine to club1872 , they either get this right from the get go or it's not worth starting as it won't get supported

 

I agree with that buster but, we have passed the point of no return on the voting procedure to the conception of Club1872. There will be i believe, a further vote on the actual merger of the supporters organisations, once all the points and articles of association have been agreed? That will be the time to further canvass the members of The RST and Rangers First, etc, to force the point of the 'Independence issue'

 

If Club1872 is not fully independent and supporters wishes and aspirations, are not fully listened to or conveyed to the clubs board. Nor then acted upon by the board, it will all quickly unravel. Probably to re-emerge as something new again, hopefully then fully independent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly did the support, or rather the approx14000 who voted , vote for . The exact question asked was the preposterous " do you want to unite the fans groups " with an attached woolly not yet agreed wish list that we were told would be changed after the vote went through .

 

So basically what did we vote for .

 

Plus there were people who put themselves up for election on RF who have done a 180 on their election pledges and what they stood for .

 

Who's that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have concerns about the independence of the fans group and the effect of this merger on share purchase towards fan ownership. I have no doubt that Chris will do an excellent job but my spidey sense is spooked too. I would also like to express my disgust at the said individual calling Chris a racist and holding a poll about it. Disgraceful comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a simple Q bud

 

And it was a simple answer , go back and read what they said in their election pitches , if you are happy with what happened against what they said prior to the election then fine , it's no big deal

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it was a simple answer , go back and read what they said in their election pitches , if you are happy with what happened against what they said prior to the election then fine , it's no big deal

 

Fair enough - Thought that was a pointed accusation rather than a general remark.

 

I personally stood on improved communication - now for all that has went on I feel I have put a good number of hours into that and have stuck as well as I could to that pledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough - Thought that was a pointed accusation rather than a general remark.

 

I personally stood on improved communication - now for all that has went on I feel I have put a good number of hours into that and have stuck as well as I could to that pledge.

Sorry Greg if you took that as any sort of dig at yourself I apologise for any confusion , I've said many times on here and RM I believe you are one of the guys I fully trust , even though we disagree on the COI point

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Greg if you took that as any sort of dig at yourself I apologise for any confusion , I've said many times on here and RM I believe you are one of the guys I fully trust , even though we disagree on the COI point

 

I didn't think you were having a go at me mate (though It does look like I thought you did reading it back:shock:)

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall an RST rep attending NARSA in the past to promote the RST at no cost to the club.

 

The fact that the club seem extremely keen to promote the new organisation does set off the spidey senses, as RBR put it. I want it to be holding the club to account, which is difficult to do if the club are subsidising you.

 

If I was part of the club I'd be keen to see a supporters representation (via group/s) that was more unified and less divided than in the past. That previous division had been encouraged and exploited by 'dodgy geezers' in the past.

 

So much so that I could understand the club pushing for this and seeing any contribution in time/costs as an investment for the good of the football club going forwards.

 

It shouldn't mean that a new organisation can't hold the club to account if need be........although can understand the logic behind those who think it might. It'd be down to those involved to make sure independence was retained.

 

Spidery senses were all too absent when they were really needed.

This at the end of the day is about supporters deciding what they want, on the basis that they want to be part of the ownership and that they want to see the club do well. If it doesn't do a good job then funding will drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.