The Club1872 Crossroads

[Bluedell 5,329]

In my experience James has never done that. He has been trying to facilitate the return of Laura and Joanne since three days after they resigned and before it was made public. Obstacles were constantly put in his way. He wanted to poll members as it was a key decision.

 

he's done it on this occasion. Perhaps this is the first time a decision has gone against him?

 

Whether or not I agree with the fact that L&J are being reappointed (I do) the fact that a poll should be held should be a decision taken by the directors as a whole, If the resignees didn't want them appointed then I disagree with them, but I support their democratic right to make that decision. I'm not surprised that they resigned if that is indeed the case.

[Gaffer 1,665]

It's all just hearsay. If these disputes are real, or concerns are real, then show me the minutes of the meeting where it was discussed. As I've said many times before, I won't hold my breath because I'll be surprised if they exist.

[plgsarmy 111]

he's done it on this occasion. Perhaps this is the first time a decision has gone against him?

 

Whether or not I agree with the fact that L&J are being reappointed (I do) the fact that a poll should be held should be a decision taken by the directors as a whole, If the resignees didn't want them appointed then I disagree with them, but I support their democratic right to make that decision. I'm not surprised that they resigned if that is indeed the case.

 

 

D, when they were appointed they signed a declaration that all key decisions would be put to members. They did not want members to have a say in this.

[Gaffer 1,665]

Well, couldn't have timed the article much worse tbh! Was hoping that everyone could pull together for the greater good and start fixing some of the basics to give C1872 a strong foundation that could be built upon on and beyond the next elections.

Cannot believe that we're now in a situation where the board effectively has one director.

I still remain supportive of the core aims and believe that C1872 can work but it simply can't survive much more of this nonsense.

 

Your original post was excellent, and was actually very well timed. Unfortunately for you/us, we are being let down by too many appointed board members. However, the reason I say your post was well timed is because there's no time like the present to motivate a wider group of supporters to take an interest, and fix this for the longer term security of our club. We have problems, but we are only a small number of good people away from making a real difference. Perhaps we will be more careful before appointing representatives in future. It's a good lesson for all of us, and very timely.

[Uilleam 5,429]

Double post.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Uilleam

[Uilleam 5,429]

Last week, recently anyway, there appeared an article on Gersnet, berating the Club's poor image and its antediluvian approach to the public and to public relations.

 

This week, there are two threads on Gersnet, and another article, identifying difficulties affecting the supporters' organisation Club 1872; soiled linen is on open display.

 

The fact is that the Club 1872 scenario, as evidenced, is an embarrassment; it appears, in terms of administration, governance, management, a shambles (a word I do not use lightly, unlike others); in terms of public relations, image, and marketing, a disaster.

Arguably it is a minor matter, of interest only to the Rangers' support, but it does provide an amusing divertissement for our enemies, encourages the enemies of supporter ownership/control, and does little to encourage the Club's board(s) to take criticism by supporters' groups seriously.

 

Would it be unkind to suggest "Physicians, heal thyselves"?

Edited May 17, 2017 by Uilleam

[AM89 0]

Your original post was excellent, and was actually very well timed. Unfortunately for you/us, we are being let down by too many appointed board members. However, the reason I say your post was well timed is because there's no time like the present to motivate a wider group of supporters to take an interest, and fix this for the longer term security of our club. We have problems, but we are only a small number of good people away from making a real difference. Perhaps we will be more careful before appointing representatives in future. It's a good lesson for all of us, and very timely.

 

I hope the main message can still be applicable - let's help, support and make a difference where we can.

 

But right now the squabbles and negativity are likely to turn many more people off, possibly for good. An underperforming org is one thing, but a distrusted one is so much worse. And that's what'll happen with accusations and counter-claims.

 

I hope whatever happens next allows C1872 to move forward and the next elections, whether they come now or in September, will decide whether it sinks or swims. There is a real danger of all this potential simply fading slowly into irrelevance.

[Bluedell 5,329]

D, when they were appointed they signed a declaration that all key decisions would be put to members. They did not want members to have a say in this.

 

Is that why nothing gets done by C1872?

 

The board were appointed to lead and make decisions. It may be great in theory to turn round and consult the membership for key decisions but the membership are not given all the information. We haven't been given full details on what all the issues were and not been given access to question the key parties. the membership are generally not in a position to make an informed decision.

 

In addition, we cannot have one director overturning a decision of the other directors.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

In my experience James has never done that. He has been trying to facilitate the return of Laura and Joanne since three days after they resigned and before it was made public. Obstacles were constantly put in his way. He wanted to poll members as it was a key decision.

 

It is right to poll the members but it is wrong that one director can overrule the others and in any event the poll should have been individual not collective.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

D, when they were appointed they signed a declaration that all key decisions would be put to members. They did not want members to have a say in this.

 

If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then we are better of without them.

 

You cannot resign (as in Laura and Joanne) and then withdraw your resignation and expect to be welcomed back whenever you feel like it.

Edited May 17, 2017 by BrahimHemdani