craig 5,199 Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 Craig, it took them about 2 weeks to announce the previous resignations. My understanding is that he didn't refuse fresh elections and has evidence of this. Why the need for fresh elections ? They could surely have been co-opted back onto the Board until the annual elections took place in a couple of months. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 Everyone knew about James's role with the Club yet he was voted on by the members. He said from day one that it was only for a year. Given C1872 had a platform of transparency and independence he shouldn't have stood in the first place IMHO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffer 1,665 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) All of what you say is completely futile in the event that the Board member acting unilaterally ignores any and all actions by the remainder of the Board - and the issue is augmented when that Board member is also employed by the Club itself. You talk about Board members sticking around and improving things from the inside - when they are being ignored by a single Board member who says he has the right to veto anything and everything then you, effectively, have only one option left - which is to resign. That way you at least bring it to the attention of the membership that all is not well. You can't forget that Blair was essentially refusing to even broadcast the latest two resignations. It's not futile at all Craig and you shouldn't perpetuate that myth. If the other board members convened, they could put a motion to the membership. They didn't. They just resigned, and that's poor. It's for that reason that I am suspicious of their motives, or at the very least I doubt their appropriateness for a position on our board. Edited May 17, 2017 by Gaffer 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffer 1,665 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Given C1872 had a platform of transparency and independence he shouldn't have stood in the first place IMHO. He did stand, and the members voted for him. That's democracy in action. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I voted for James Blair for reason of expediency and it was supposed to be a temporary secondment. However if i had know he would hold the keys to the safe, the passwords to the computers and the title deeds to the various companies, i might have had a second thought. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 He did stand, and the members voted for him. That's democracy in action. That's not democracy that's ignorance on behalf of the support , everyone and anyone who has any knowledge on this subject all came to the same conclusion , its a clear conflict of interest and he shouldn't stand , the fact he ignored these calls and did it anyway is an abuse of his position. Given the revelations from the take over panel and their comments about his behavior , he shouldn't even be our company secretary , but its pure unstaunch to slaughter a Rangers fan these days , even one as inept as this guy . And I've said all of this to him at the last members meeting , just got a shrug of the shoulders . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 It's not futile at all Craig and you shouldn't perpetuate that myth. If the other board members convened, they could put a motion to the membership. They didn't. They just resigned, and that's poor. It's for that reason that I am suspicious of their motives, or at the very least I doubt their appropriateness for a position on our board. As much as I disagreed with your other point I think your bang on with this one , these 3 did not want fresh elections because they knew they would get voted out , simple. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffer 1,665 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 That's not democracy that's ignorance on behalf of the support , everyone and anyone who has any knowledge on this subject all came to the same conclusion , its a clear conflict of interest and he shouldn't stand , the fact he ignored these calls and did it anyway is an abuse of his position. Given the revelations from the take over panel and their comments about his behavior , he shouldn't even be our company secretary , but its pure unstaunch to slaughter a Rangers fan these days , even one as inept as this guy . And I've said all of this to him at the last members meeting , just got a shrug of the shoulders . You've actually hit the nail on the head here in terms of why democracies don't work. In this country, around 8 million people vote. I would hazard a guess that almost two thirds of them vote in complete ignorance of what they're actually voting for. Democracy works when you have informed people casting a vote. Very rarely does that happen though, but if we know we operate under that system, we have to accept the consequences, or change the system. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 It's not futile at all Craig and you shouldn't perpetuate that myth. If the other board members convened, they could put a motion to the membership. They didn't. They just resigned, and that's poor. It's for that reason that I am suspicious of their motives, or at the very least I doubt their appropriateness for a position on our board. Have you read that he was the guarantor and could veto ANYTHING the other Board members put forth ? That indeed makes it futile. The membership also couldn't do anything either, not without fresh elections. What options do they have to remove a director operating unilaterally and with full veto power. It isn't a myth that it is futile where one person wields dictator-like power. Suspicious of motives ? How about being on a Board where you have completely no say in how the organization is run IF one Board member can over-ride any other Board member ? It is all far too easy for you and I to sit on the sidelines and question people's motives - but if you are putting your head above the parapet but without any significant say in how things are run then you will quickly say "why should I bother". These are all volunteer positions and whilst it is easy to say "do it for the sake of the club or for the sake of C1872" these are thankless positions which become pointless positions when you can't really have any say in the direction or operations. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 He did stand, and the members voted for him. That's democracy in action. He had a conflict of interest from the outset. One he knew about, or at least should have known about. C1872 was founded on the promise of transparency and independence - James Blair should have known that his independence would be called into question. 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.