der Berliner 3,247 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 We see here, on a smaller scale, the problems that "fan ownership" of a club might mean. What is needed is a "board" far enough removed from personal gain/fame, club and fans to oversee this all. Easier said than done. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 We see here, on a smaller scale, the problems that "fan ownership" of a club might mean. What is needed is a "board" far enough removed from personal gain/fame, club and fans to oversee this all. Easier said than done. I agree DB, but Rome wasn't built in a day as they say. teething problems will happen, along with in-fighting, cliques and cabals, But it's worth fighting for. Even with all the troubles club1872 have, they are still taking in circa £40k pm, and have £1.1mil at bank. Not bad for a support that's at each other throats most of the time, if we ever get this sorted and organised properly, we will one day be the major shareholder at Rangers. In the meantime all i can do is keep putting my subs in and keep the faith. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 We will never have unity. Whole sections of our support live off hating another. Its there every waking though. But its a small group of sad people. Ignore them and get on with it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Ok. I'm aware of your postings on the subject. I happen to think you're a fair-minded guy...where do we go? CH won the last vote by a landslide. He believes he's in the right. Very many agree with him. At the same time very many find him total poison. They will not work with him. So where does that leave us? Broken, divided, in-fighting as usual. One thing I totally agree upon, avoiding the CH issue, the remaining directors esp Alex Wilson are totally and utterly shambolic in their P.R. That said, someone either within or outside has to take a stand and honestly engage with members or else the whole thing is a joke. It already f*cking is. The saddest thing is, so many are just giving up in despair and the "I told you so's" seem content with being right. Can no-one f*cking stand up and say "We've f*cked this up....this is how we fix it?" Lucy, Im not certain this really is factional infighting, nor is it about individuals. There may well be different opinions being expressed on various forums based around individual's popularity etc but as far as Im concerned its about principles not individuals or popularity. I believe what transpired constituted a situational conflict of interest in that by attending the meeting Craig could gain a situational advantage over other candidates - a concern which came to fruition when a situation was discussed at the security meeting which actually featured in the candidates questions during interview. But as rbr will tell you - as was dicussed at the meeting last Thursday - Craig and I are in agreement over the circumstances, its just the interpretations which differ. For me it is unequivocal, for others it has been referred to as "a grey area". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,198 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Even if it COULD be construed as a "grey area" D'Art.... that in itself means CH shouldn't have attended. Why ? Because every candidate putting themselves forward did so on the grounds of transparency and independence from the Club. No conflicts of interest would be allowed to transpire, real or perceived. As soon as someone says "this is a grey area" you know that the appropriate thing to do is to not give any justification for people to scream "conflict of interest". It smacks of gross naivety at best for me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 No question he shouldnt have attended. Is it a big thing that he did. Not so much. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Even if it COULD be construed as a "grey area" D'Art.... that in itself means CH shouldn't have attended. Why ? Because every candidate putting themselves forward did so on the grounds of transparency and independence from the Club. No conflicts of interest would be allowed to transpire, real or perceived. As soon as someone says "this is a grey area" you know that the appropriate thing to do is to not give any justification for people to scream "conflict of interest". It smacks of gross naivety at best for me. The problem is Craig , it's blatantly obvious to you , it's blatantly obvious to me , it was blatantly obvious to the 3 resignees directors , it's blatantly obvious to the majority of the people at the club1872 meeting , yet it wasn't blatantly obvious to 4 directors of club 1872 , one of whom just happens to be the company secratery , as someone stated at the meeting , " What's really worrying me and leaving me with absolutely no confidence in you , is you simply don't get it " 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,198 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 (edited) The problem is Craig , it's blatantly obvious to you , it's blatantly obvious to me , it was blatantly obvious to the 3 resignees directors , it's blatantly obvious to the majority of the people at the club1872 meeting , yet it wasn't blatantly obvious to 4 directors of club 1872 , one of whom just happens to be the company secratery , as someone stated at the meeting , " What's really worrying me and leaving me with absolutely no confidence in you , is you simply don't get it " They have little option but to defend it - either that or own the fact he shouldn't have attended. And people don't like to admit they made mistakes. The worrying thing for me is the Club Secretary, who is a lawyer and knows full well what constitutes conflicts of interest, seems to think that this didn't have the potential to be viewed as a conflict of interest. As a lawyer grey areas in governance are fairly easy to overcome - you avoid the grey area. Blair should have known better. Personally I get the feeling that they are trying to look at C1872 directorship and the SLO position as being mutually exclusive - which is great if C1872 directors didn't run on independence, transparency and to ensure they would "do the right thing". Worse, CH's attendance was absolutely not necessary - the whole ridiculous situation was so easily avoided - and yet they walked right through the "how best to screw this up" door. Edited April 8, 2017 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 I think CH started with fantastic resolve and ideas to help Rangers. Unfortunately I think he used it to become a gold digger. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 (edited) I think thats absolutely wrong. Indeed i am sure its cost him dearly. Edited April 9, 2017 by the gunslinger 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.