buster.

They fly the Palestinian flag but in this are more Israeli like.

Yes ! If 'campaign' continues it presents an opportunity to ridicule them in a professional and public fashion. Unfortunately, I doubt those who know what they are doing will pursue a 'campaign' built on sand.

Nothing like an injurytime 'bullet header' to win a cup-tie. Very well taken

If there had been 22 women and one man then I'm sure electioneering may have have taken on a different slant with members preferring portfolios to profiles. ...

Count up all the times we've had headlines about moving to England, Atlantic League etc. Now count up all the times something actually happened.

Perhaps the women feel in their water that violence is less probable at a match rather than at a fans meeting

A lot of posturing recently that is most probably designed firstly to influence any negotiations regards UEFA tournament reform.

Caught Red-Handed ! ...

In politics, if you go about things in that way then don't get caught.

Old Chinese proverb Man should say what he see and not jump on bandwagon

I appreciate there are issues for the members to decide but even as an outsider (not a member) I'm concerned about how the individuals involved go about saying and doing things because this has been part of a major problem with the fanbase as a whole for too long. -------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think about the way Ronnie Johnston and Graham Campbell went about incorporating RIFCLtd on the QT then GC stood for an election on a 'Transparency for Members' ticket ?

I'm an opinionated barsteward and if there was to be an RST board election and I had similar concerns or saw people with a secret agenda I'd say. The only person I know of regards 'visual/in the limelight' is Chris Graham, who I've commented about on FF and it wasn't all complimentary....but we get away from the real issues Mr North. #Objective

I'll answer you in good time but don't you think the issues involved are more important and worth comment ? I'm not important and I've not really said anything I wouldn't normally say re. issues surrounding election. In fact I've blethered on about 2 things. 1. Alan Harris and IMO his unsuitability for more involvement in fans groups/boards for a partly inglorious history and if that is a crime, you're going to half to round up quite a few. NB. I did similar at the RFB elections IIRC. 2. I highlighted this RIFCLtd incorporation. Over the years I've become accustomed to going after your CW, CGg, Retail deal etc. and if I see what looks like folk being a bit sneaky I'll say so. Had Ronnie and Graham not done so then I wouldn't have even known them to speak about and had it been another two, I'd have done the same thing. -------------------------------------------------------- Back to the real business I appreciate there are issues for the members to decide but even as an outsider (not a member) I'm concerned about how the individuals involved go about saying and doing things because this has been part of a major problem with the fanbase as a whole for too long.

“What are you first and foremost a supporter of the club or a supporter of said group?” I'm a Rangers supporter ------------------------------------------------------------- We had RIFCLtd being incorporated on the QT in January with directors (Ronnie Johnston and Graham Campbell) not informing members of the new fans group vehicle or any contingent plans....despite GC declaring consultation and transparency as two of the three foundations of RF that were set in stone. So we have a leak/rumour being released during the election and written about by '@iang_1972' We have the mystery people who he sought approvel from before writing. People can judge for themselves but it all sounds a bit untransparent and desperate............ during an election process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The RF members voted 95%+ to study proposals for a merger. AFAIK nothing will be decided without a further vote,....... so why the sudden shouting at this stage in the election process ? Why didn't people have this conversation prior to the 95%+ vote and/or within the statement profiles ?

Perhaps those who championed 'transparency' in their profile.

If you haven't seen these 'Fan Denial' videos from Paddy Power click No Mince Pies for LVG

A fans rant The True Geordie

Andy, it's an election at a time when I think the general feeling around the club is of 'CHANGE'. We've CHANGED the board. We've CHANGED the football operation and the management team. We've even CHANGED the way the team play football. We want to CHANGE retail and some commercial contracts. Emphatic majorities of members voted to come up with proposals so as to CHANGE another area that has been problematic, fans groups. We currently have an election where there are issues worth commenting on and individuals will use social media to do so although name-calling does lower the tone. 1. If two candidates incorporate a vehicle for a fans group within their strategy, campaign on transparency for RF members but choose to keep their intentions secret then they are caught with their pants down....that IMO needs to be highlighted, regardless of who it is. 2. If Alan Harris (BH) chooses to go about his campaign in a negative manner by attacking others from the outset then complains at his past being redirected towards him then, sorry but the sympathy vote isn't really on. Is it not true to say most would like to see CHANGE from the Machiavellian politics and individuals with a long history of creating selfish carnage ? Can people expect CHANGE if they return the 'usual suspects' with the 'usual selfish agendas' ?

Fair enough Ryan, I can appreciate that. On a selfish note, it's a pity more like you couldn't actually be part of a positive merger going forward. ie. some of the old guard who have been involved in past problems make way for a younger, less political, fresher blood.

Yes, by definition it would. Aslong as proposals were studied and agreed upon, that it was well run, independent but at the same time had a good relationship with the club you wouldn't think there had to be a major problem,.....but it seems as though another group is ready to go live if some don't get their way. People have a right to put their money where they want, into whatever vehicle but what get's me more is any possible political agenda.

I think it to a degree that it reflects the general problem. Individuals that haven't really represented the majority.

If you are part of the 3%, do you expect to be elected ?

There was an overwhelming majority of RF members who voted to explore the route to a merger. A merger would of course by definition help unity and only occur if members of groups voted for it. The main problem it would seem are some individuals, agendas and the inevitable ensuing division....although I think the number of these people is disproportionately lower to the noise they make. The division has been taken advantage of by Sir Duped, the allegedly fraudulent and others. The dark Machiavellian side of things has seen some on one side of a 'division' side with the 'bad guys' (previous regimes) which for me has been the main issue............and at times the 'noise' has been amplified by the Jack Irvines of this world. Going forwards I'd have thought Rangers supporters could agree a basic way forward with the good of the club in mind and elect directors to keep things right, including maintaining independence from the club. At the same time the club isn't an enemy, and if the agendas that some bring forward (or call it the simple dislike of individuals on the RIFC board) then they are free to join/leave/set-up another Judeas PF.

We picked the right game to remain goalless last week as we didn't frop any points, this week we could do with them going in off the post, rather than to safety. This week we have the added options of O'Hallaron and King which I think will serve us well.

It's brilliant ! Back in the day on FF (from 2011 - 2014) I gave out an annual 'The Black Knight Award'. A sort of satirical poking of fun at agitators whose then pro-board arguments and credibility were worn away but still kept coming back for more (before the inevitable 'withdrawal').