buster.
-
Posts
14,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
110
Everything posted by buster.
-
I come back to the clubs interests being better served by the RFB, rather than the fans interests. The idea/suggestion/proposal that the RFB,........... look to facilitate a process that will marginalise groups who are active in holding the board to account and protesting for the interests of the support as they see it, is perverse. You say above that "I'm prepared to consider the possibilities" regards holding the RIFC board to account in a meaningful and significant way. Yet you actively seek to install layers of comfort for them and for some reason and despite all of your experience, couldn't see that Charles Green was a bullshitter. I'd say you should be looking to encourage groups who actively demand more for transparency because your current course will see the RFB become a stillborn casualty.
-
My grammer is p**h but it's an honest mistake that comes from a poor education. I thank you for the now nightly lesson. However, it is ironic that I get my lessons when you seem to 'run out of things to say' ! My old Grandmother used to tell me that one favour deserved another and perhaps in return, I could offer you some lessons in how to sniff out those characters taking advantage of Rangers. It's just that it hasn't been your strong point and I'd have thought it might be useful if you were prepared to harbour such thoughts or consider such possibilities.
-
I think it appears to be a mistake by he who wrote up the minutes, followed by an oversight from youself when you later offered ammendments. As I said, it can happen to the best of us.
-
Another honest mistake or oversight. I remember Brian Stockbridge having problems with the wording on resolution 10.
-
An interesting plan and doubtless considered analysis,... but I'd maintain that our main problems have been and still are within the walls of Ibrox.
-
He will have his minions deal with these issues. His spindoctor (Keith Bishop) will have been introduced to Toxic Jack (remit from Easdale block) and I'd have thought that Toxic will have been told to continue what he's doing regards spin/support due to his long experience misleading Bears and contacts/knowledge of the Scottiish media. Toxic being part of the development of the RFB, more specifically how to make it work for the club's interests regards control and manipulation (ie.macro concept/see #215).
-
The 'messenger' shouldn't have a problem if he were to act in the interests of the fans in an unbiased and open way. However, we already see signs that clubs interests on vital matters seem to be served via suggestions / proposals.
-
I think Gersnet has been fair and objective in the criticisms put forward. Probably the most measured and objective debate on the issue in the online Rangers world. I believe the RFB was formed and shaped by the club with the clubs interests at heart. Not forgetting that those at an executive level at the club very much have their own interests as priority. There will be micro benefits for the support but beware of the bigger picture. I'm as convinced of this, as I was that the likes of CW and CG&Co were 'up to it' before they took their seat at Ibrox.
-
Alloa chairman confirms game will go ahead next week
buster. replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
Yes, playing this Home match midweek would reduce revenue significantly at a time when we have cashflow problems. -
I fully understand that there are those who see FS as a 'trouble-maker' but the day 'neutrality' is born from such a relatively small band of supporters who champion corporate secrecy and funnily enough have such an obviously poor track record of judgement calls, is a sad one. Conversley, a success for those club advisors in 'PR', who I believe to be, in part behind the macro concepts goals for the RFB (of which I go into more detail in #215). A spade is a spade and I think it more informative to look at the numbers who didn't renew or purchase ST's in the summer. The lack of transparency and ensuing lack of trust being IMO, the most important factor with on-pitch issues coming second. You say it's early days and it is but there have already been many issues highlighted and criticised that lead to strong opinions based on the present. We should learn to trust our judgement and not automatically give the benefit of the doubt, it hasn't served us well.
-
I stand by my post and it's wording but recognise that the main body of the support passes on the politics, as it did when voting for the RFB. However it does so for nearly everything and that isn't reason to say there is or isn't anything to see. You say in balance that "he's clever enough to appreciate his involvement in subsequent projects will always be viewed suspiciously by some as opposed to sympathetically", that suspicion doesn't arise from 'the nothing' just as some will go overboard in their vitriol. Short of making lists from the past, we won't get much further with it on this thread, only history shows it's not wise to forget it. I would strongly take issue with you regards you associating FS with the word "baggage" or at least without the qualification that any such "baggage" would be a term used by those in and around the executive board at the club. In our situation, are fans who prefer for the club board to be allowed a cloak of secrecy beyond what is in the Companies Act to be taken seriously ? ie. "bagagge" that was in the interests of the supporter looking for transparency. Forgetting individuals for a moment. It boils down to the interests of the fan. It shouldn't be about a fansboard that is allowed to serve the macro interests of the club in a devious and characteristic way, wholly in keeping with the past few years, ie. club agenda and gulible fans giving the benefit of the doubt for the Xth time. With that in mind there are many 'active issues' to get on with regards the present. The RFB needs office bearers that have an unbiased and open outlook regards the 'lot' and interests of all the supporters, not just some and certainly not the club. It needs significant independence, not significant club control.
-
It is my opinion and that of many other fans that if BH has hopes for the RFB to be a constructive force, then he as an individual shouldn't stand for election as an office bearer. That isn't to say he couldn't do a good job on behalf of the interests of away fans, for which he was elected. There tends to be reasons why people come with attached 'baggage', it doesn't just casually appear from behind a bush. When large numbers of people have doubts about the suitability of X for a certain post it is for a reason(s) and then when such doubts are immediately fueled with the present, it's perhaps time to take stock. To be indefatigable on the messageboards isn't enough, the RFB needs office bearers that have an unbiased and open outlook regards the 'lot' and interests of all the supporters. Whilst fully realising that it is a decision for BH alone, I hope that he will consider the situation and see the RFB as being more important than any personal ambitions.
-
Don't worry, it served to deflect,............ but increasingly people are seeing things for what they are.
-
Thank's for the correction, always good to learn. I've already edited my post !! As for my "offer of reinstatement to FF in 2010", now you have me puzzled. I can't recall this, probably because I have never had such power. I think you are confusing me with someone else? Not forgetting.....................But still unfortunte to be barred............
-
You misunderstood me and perhaps yourself. You said........... "Fortunately I am barred from FF and VB for that matter as well." ie. Fortunate that you don't have the opportunity or option, rather than it being a matter of overload/choice. Hence my comment ..............."I would have thought that to be unfortunate for someone on the fansboard with an open outlook, not too many skeletons in the cupboard and an objective to see right by all fans." Being active on 2 forums or having X,000 posts on Rangers messageboards could be construed as a plus for a fansboard member. However you probably wouldn't be well advised to mention being fortunate to have been barred from two messageboards because it might lead to someone asking why that is and would it affect your duties going forward.
-
I would have thought that to be unfortunate for someone on the fansboard with an open outlook, not too many skeletons in the cupboard and an objective to see right by all fans.
-
Macro concept of RFB was always to marginalise 'awkward' fansgroups and make it easier for the RIFC/TRFC boards control and manage the fanbase. They'd probably like to have friendly office bearers on the RFB who would more or less share this particular objective , perhaps for their own reasons and look to help steer matters accordingly. Before the 2013 AGM, there were two main areas for the sp.ivs/sharks/whatever to get under control. 1. Executive control and 75% of the vote. 2. Supporters (ie. revenue stream). They were successful regards executive control although failed with the 75% and resolution 10. The supporters would be difficult but to partly address the matter, they (including Toxic) came up with the RFB. This was planned to serve them in several different ways. - Marginalise other fansgroups and centralise a body that the club would try to have 'under control'. - Use this as a perceived mandate when dealing with fans, media, shareholders. - Use successes within the micro issues to promote, justify and garner support for it going forward. In short a fansboard, occasionally for the fans but mainly for the club. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wrote the jist of the above months ago. All signs so far indicate that it is full steam ahead.
-
Agree with part of that Andy but on the specific point, comparing Ashely and Wallace is comparing apples to cabbages. Ashely will view events from afar and will have his minions take care of the frontline and that includes controlling and management of supporters perceptions and behaviour towards the club (ie. onside and if not, at least spending money). At Newcastle he has Keith Bishop as his spindoctor whose firm take care of much of this. (as per Jack Irvine has done at Ibrox). ie. Ashely won't bother himself but will have others do it for him. Wrt to the RFB. As I said earlier, both 11 months ago and on this thread. At the time of design, the macro concept was to better 'control' the supporter perception with Irvine was involved in it's broader design. It would seem that he is still employed directly or indirectly within the soap opera and his efforts remain where they have been for years, on the continuous line of Green&Co and Easdale block (who support MA). They will maintain efforts to make the RFB work for them (the club board) whilst it's possible. We will see what further suggestions and proposals come from it and what kind of office bearers emerge to steer the RFB. What we have seen thusfar doesn't aleaviate the fears that many had. It's a shame because there are some positives to be had from it. Moreover the individual categories and questioning the RIFC/TRFC board (remains to be seen what comes from that). Bottomline though, it's the same old story. When our executive board have their own interests ahead of that of the club, then that club won't go anywhere far and transparency and trust between club and support will almost certainly remain at a premium.
-
This seems to be the general phrase for the whole club. Forgetting the current executive board, the figure that would be needed to put Rangers right as a club in all areas would be an extremely large one.
-
Like so many things, I don't think the answer is black or white, it's not an either or. The club wouldn't have put it forward unless there was a 'net gain' for them and then you have to consider the Irvine influence in it's planning back in late 2013. So yes, it was always going to be about making it 'easier' for the board. However at the sametime it's possible that the RFB could do some good wrt the individuals responsibilities, eg. disabled supporters, away fans. Regards seeking more transparency and having difficult questions answered, we'll soon know how far the executive board of the club will be prepared to go............ Don't bet your last fiver on it.
-
I'd imagine that the RFB is supposed to work to the advanatge of the fans. This suggestion works to the advantage of the executive board of RIFC/TRFC. The number of ST holders that didn't renew show the numbers that were listening to the issues that the SoS/UoF brought out into the open. ------------------------------------------------------------------ This was always going to be about attempts to marginalise 'awkward groups', I'm just surprised how quick off the blocks they are in pushing for it. Instead of transparency and openness we get moves to counter attack and discourage protests via a fansboard
-
BH, do you intend to put yourself forward as an office bearer of the RFB ? Obviously that is something you may choose not to answer and I'd understand. It's my opinion for many and ever more reasons that you shouldn't. Firstly, in the interests of the RFB I don't suppose you'll be interested but my advice would be to concentrate on the lot of the 'away fans'.
-
Good on Lewis MacLeod. I see Hutton is out which is a blow.
-
Not a good sign when you start to deny 'charges' you haven't been accused of.
-
Let's cut to the chase and ignore the 'noise'. I do see a contradiction in your two statements. It's plain that your amendments were part of the minutes and so you were part of putting them together. ie. if you had no part of putting them together, then they wouldn't contain your ammendments. That by itself wouldn't be much of an issue but it comes alongside other somewhat disturbing suggestions and directions that this meeting has steered the RFB towards, many already covered throughout this thread. I'll add a post of mine from yesterday which I feel is relevant.