Anyone Attending the Club AGM?

[forlanssister 3,050]

Just rewatching the AGM on youtube.

 

Watching gratefully as John Bennett revealed he's into us for £23m then minutes later who pops up with a question  but none other than a former poster from here who not only tried to chase him away from Rangers (he preferred the Easdales & Co) by writing to Mr Bennett's boss but openly boasted about doing so for no other reason than to fluff his own ego. True to form he didn't take the opportunity to consume some humble pie or thank the Vice Chairman for all his endeavours and his capital. 

 

Alas an NDA prevents me revealing why he was the only person dismissed from the Rangers Fans Board que sera sera.

[ian1964 10,419]

1 minute ago, forlanssister said:

but none other than a former poster from here

I think I can guess who that might be!!!😁

[forlanssister 3,050]

27 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I'm not against the NDA - makes complete sense. I was questioning the part about not being able to pass on any information they (C1872) got from 3rd parties without clearing it with the Rangers board. 

I absolutely get the frustration of not being able to share information that you think should be in the wider domain but that's just something that goes with the territory.

[Bill 13,717]

49 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I thought the RST was good.  I also thought C1872 was good.

 

Both fell apart for similar reasons.  

 

What makes anyone think the pattern won't keep repeating?

I'm intrigued. Were you drunk at the time?

[Gonzo79 13,671]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

I'm intrigued. Were you drunk at the time?

Not that I recall but life often teaches us unpleasant lessons.  Some of us remain hopeful, some of us become misanthropic cynics.  

[CammyF 6,807]

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

I think I can guess who that might be!!!😁

Who? I'm lost! 

[gaspard 562]

8 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Who? I'm lost! 

If its any consolation,  I just asked him privately and I'm still lost 

[Bluedell 5,345]

2 hours ago, forlanssister said:

They are incredibly common, personally I've had to sign 2 in regards to Rangers once regarding the Rangers Fans Board (incidentally we weren't even allowed to set our own passwords for the internal email system) and once for the Disability Matters Group. Personally I think they're essential otherwise it isn't possible to function effectively without that in place.

I'm fairly sure I had to sign one in regards to C1872 when it was being set up, that I've never been released from. 

[Bluedell 5,345]

3 hours ago, buster. said:

So now we have a supporters shareholding group who do have some valid points and questions but they have little credibility.

 

The problem is that their valid points are mixed in with their pro-King and anti-board/anti-Rangers rhetoric and actions and the valid points tend to get lost.

[CammyF 6,807]

19 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

The problem is that their valid points are mixed in with their pro-King and anti-board/anti-Rangers rhetoric and actions and the valid points tend to get lost.

Im so far removed from the politics surrounding our club these days so this is a genuine question. Do Club1872 and King have an issue with entire board or specifically Park(s)? 

 

I noted they have reached out to other board members and major hareholders for discussions but omitted Park and Robertson(?).

 

If C1872 aren't the correct body to raise what the majority of us would agree are legitimate concerns, then who does raise or are in a position to raise them?