Bill

Aren’t you being just a tad pompous about this. Lighten up, it’s merely an opportunity to express an opinion and in the process share our ideas about where we are on the road to recovery. You really shouldn’t get so upset to see different views put forward. There’s no right or wrong, only opinion, some more informed than others but all equally valid.

If you can’t applaud that goal, you’re not a football fan.

When Rangers won promotion to the Premier League I thought it would take at least five years before we would make a serious challenge to be champions again. As another season slips by and still little in the way of solid foundations laid down, we look nowhere near to challenging Celtic. At the moment I think five years wasn't being overly pessimistic but I'd be interested to see what the wider opinions are among members

I shudder when Foderingham has the ball at his feet. Can be a decent shot stopper but probably too many off days.

The harsh reality is we’re miles away from a title winnng team. Country miles.

No, whatever our preference, I think we can all stop talking about Murty as a possible future manager. That ship has well and truly sailed.

All I can think of is no Rangers team under Walter Smith or Jock Wallace would have dared turn in a performance like that. Which suggests a failure of leadership.

Even if the board had indeed reached that firm decision, why would they tell Murty now? It would be rank stupidity with no possible gain.

The ritual sacrifice of Hugh Dallas was the end of refereeing in Scotland

I don't believe I've ever said it would be a bad idea, just that there are so many reasons to believe it won't happen and if it was in any way likely then it would have happened long ago. You're right about one thing though, it's nothing more than a personal opinion.

OK, I'll keep any eye on this worrying behaviour and throw in a few Madfukker cluster bombs if it looks like you're agreeing too much.

If there's a better supporters' initiative, I've yet to hear about it. You should be proud of yourselves for this work, which will resonate with generations of Rangers supporters to come.

Surely any group aspiring to join the Rangers board will already have done this before asking for other people's money to fund it?

Yes and then you find the other shareholders are not in the least bit interested in having a supporter on the board and you're told to fuck off with your tail between your legs. What do you do then - call another EGM in the hope you get lucky and waste even more of the clubs money. Tell me how many of the "other shareholders" have been approached by C1872 to test the waters ... and how many have endorsed the idea of a supporters' rep on the board. What's that you say? None? Perhaps it's the complete lack of support that encourages you, who knows?

What would be the point of calling an EGM unless they first knew they had the shareholder support to win a vote ... other than costing the club a lot of money and making a nuisance of themselves to ensure they would never achieve a seat on the board. What gets me about all this is that, no matter who sits in it, a seat on the board would simply tie C1872's hands. Directors have legal duties and obligations to the company and would have no choice but to abide by board decisions. Being a director gives you very little power unless you hold a majority of hands round the table. Being a shareholder gives you very little power unless you control a majority of the shares. There seem to be more than a few fans who think C1872 has some sort of right to a seat on the board - it doesn't. Or that a seat on the board would carry enough stroke to influence the board's decisions - it wouldn't. It's only an opinion but I increasingly feel C1872 has allowed this myth to take root in order to build it's share-buying funds and promote the current flawed strategy. I don't contribute to C1872 so it doesn't affect me directly but I wonder if those who do know that the objective they're buying into is effectively undeliverable. If C1872 wants to flex its muscles it could be far more effective operating from outside the boardroom. But that would require guile and hard work.

I’ve head similar but the key word was Ijmuiden

There are lots of important issues that don't require a seat on the board to be addressed. In fact a seat on the board and the fiduciary responsibilities that come with it might necessarily inhibit rather than strengthen the supporter voice. The present strategy has always looked fragile and should be seriously reappraised. The difficulty will be retaining membership and goodwill while changing horses in midstream.

What I'm saying is there's a fundamental divergence of objectives between running a company and supporting a football club ... and those in a position to give the supporters what they believe is good for them (a seat on the board) believe that a supporter on the board will be a hinderance to the good management of the company. If that wasn't the case you would have seen a supporter-appointed director long ago. It's not an issue of who that director is or what experience he/she brings but that the board is always going to be uncomfortable with whether his/her motives are compatible with the present incumbents. That's life in the boardroom stakes and it's time C1872 rose above its ambitions and admitted as much to those who part with their money every month.

We really need to stop being so obvious in our thinking. The point is exactly the one you emphasise - that the person isn't the issue but the platform he/she stands on. Surely that's becoming obvious after all this time.

Great post Gaffer. I'd like to try to answer your question "What is it that our rep can offer the board?" ... nothing.

This will not please everyone. I think there’s a question to be asked ... is the right to a seat on the board at least being inferred by C1872 as an encouragement to supporters to make donations ... when clearly no such right exists and the board continues to signal its difficulties with such an outcome?

And who’s to say he is? As a supporter I’d want to know what he is today, not what he might be in future. The point is is there’s no absolute morality here. It’s about what the board considers right or wrong, not what a shareholder like C1872 thinks is in their own interest. There’s been an ongoing misrepresentation that buying shares would somehow create an entitlement to a directorship and that a seat on the board would bring some sort of influence. Neither is the case.

You become a director because the board thinks you can contribute to the successful running of the company, not just because you’ve bought shares. All I’ve been saying is the board clearly doesn’t put C1872 in that category. That’s the reality of it, whatever anyone says.

No, I’ve not suggested that at all, only that a 10% shareholding doesn’t bring the influence many would have you believe.

Closer as in not close at all?