RFFF meeting with fans reps - 4/7/12

[Bluedell 5,679]

I also think that you are being unfair singling out the 'RST' rep when the Assembly and Association have issued similar statements.

 

Does the Association have anyone on the RFFF committee?

 

If members of the RFFF committee are unable to accept collective responsibility they should stand down. Surely you would agree with that?

[Bluedell 5,679]

how can they protect us if anyone who doesn't support the owner is forced out?

 

Nobody is suggesting that they get forced out due to their views on Green, but you can't have the committee coming out with one statement and then members immediately saying exactly the opposite. It's not pro or anti Green but there needs to be consistency.

[Bluedell 5,679]

At the last meeting of the RFFF which was on the day of the march to Hampden, the representatives of the Rangers support who were gathered there suggested, voted and confirmed that they were giving a mandate to the committee of the RFFF to act on behalf of the support collectively in dealing with club issues.

So is the Assembly now obsolete? Will it be disbanded?

[GovanAllan 0]

my point is. if they are to represent us they can't be sops to green.

 

as such forcing out any desenters is a moronic idea.

 

The RFFF have to speak as one voice to the fans, it's not as if we haven't been crying out for it for years. If one or two for reasons unknown can't do that then yes they should be asked to leave.

 

You don't ask The RFFF to do a job then cry foul because you don't like the answer they give you, it would seem some are only happy when the worst is revealed.

 

Have you not stopped to wonder the reason nobody can find anything wrong is because this time there isn't anything wrong?

 

You asked Green for the truth so he tells you, he's here to see the club to share flotation then he's taking his wage and off to do something else leaving others hopefully a big fan participation to get on with the job, the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and he gets strung up for it. If you don't like the answers stop asking the questions.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Nobody is suggesting that they get forced out due to their views on Green, but you can't have the committee coming out with one statement and then members immediately saying exactly the opposite. It's not pro or anti Green but there needs to be consistency.

 

so they vote on an issue then swallow their own feelings regardless?

 

if that's the case no one who's on any other committee can really be on the rfff.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The RFFF have to speak as one voice to the fans, it's not as if we haven't been crying out for it for years. If one or two for reasons unknown can't do that then yes they should be asked to leave.

 

You don't ask The RFFF to do a job then cry foul because you don't like the answer they give you, it would seem some are only happy when the worst is revealed.

 

Have you not stopped to wonder the reason nobody can find anything wrong is because this time there isn't anything wrong?

 

You asked Green for the truth so he tells you, he's here to see the club to share flotation then he's taking his wage and off to do something else leaving others hopefully a big fan participation to get on with the job, the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and he gets strung up for it. If you don't like the answers stop asking the questions.

 

greens told us the truth. really?

 

what's the answers to Chris grahams questions then? I must have missed those.

 

if the rfff has to speak as one the no statement should have been issues unless it was supported unanimously. which it clearly wasn't.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

TB, I'm not going to fall out with you but there are a few things here that are incorrect. Firstly, the committee was in place prior to the meeting on the day of the march. It was at the previous meeting that it was set up. Also, it was my understanding that they had a mandate whilst the club was in administration but there was nothing to suggest that they would have a role when we came out of administration or when we were sold. I also think that you are being unfair singling out the 'RST' rep when the Assembly and Association have issued similar statements. I'd also like to point out that Mark was invited onto the committee at a meeting prior to the bigger meeting. I'm unclear whether this was because he was on the RST Board or representing the Assembly or as the owner of FF. I'm pleased to see that the committee is asking pertinent questions as you have probably given more information here that has come out from them. Who else do you think should have stepped down, I know Andy and Jim C already have? I also think that it's wrong to say people are actively working against the club because they would prefer owners with a connection to the club. I would never do anything to harm the club, I have had a season ticket since 1974 and have followed the club home and away since then. I haven't yet decided what to do about my season ticket but please don't accuse me and others like me of trying to harm my club just because I have doubts about handing over £600 of my hard earned cash to people I have doubts about.

 

plg,

 

You know me better than that.

 

I make absolutely no comment about you or the majority of your RST board members, many of whom I have the utmost respect for as you well know.

 

If you disagree that people are actively working agsinst the owners of our club, then we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I firmly believe that there are.

 

You are of course correct in that the meeting of the RFFF I refer to was the original meeting, not the follow-up one on the day of the march. The facts of how it happened are correct however. There can be no doubt that Mark is there as a rep of the RST/FF. If the RST board wish to have a different rep involved in the RFFF that is your right. What cannot be argued is that the RST has been actively supporting many groups, Blue Knights, McColl, Brown, and have never given any support to the current owners, despite being shown the same evidence as the rest of the RFFF which proves funding etc. Why is that?

 

I didnt ask for anyone to stand down, that is not my right. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can stay on the RFFF committee while backing other groups. I only stated that it was suggested he stand down, and he declined.

 

I hope you are able to attend the meeting on Wednesday in order that you can hear the answers to the questions you are unsure about, and hopefully reassure you, like me and many others, that the current owners are worthy of our ST renewal. Personally I have not returned my ST either, not because I think Green is going to steal the money, not beacuse I am unsure if I am going to go next season or not, but in principle until I understand that we have a league to play in, what league that is, and what the cost of the ST will be to watch it. Hopefully these far more important issues are resolved soon and we can all get behind the team and the club going forward.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

how can they protect us if anyone who doesn't support the owner is forced out?

 

Its not about blindly supporting the owner. Its about asking the questions and getting the proof of the answers. When you get the answers to your satisfaction and beyond doubt, you then move on to the next item. I believe every single one of the guys involved int he RFFF had major concerns about Green and his band at the start of discussions but as time has went on and every single question has been answered satisfactorily, proof shown, lies spouted elsewhere proven as such, then there comes a time when it is only right and proper to start to give some benefit of the doubt to the owners. Not a blank canvass to go ahead and do what they like, but tentative forward steps together for the good of the club.

[GovanAllan 0]

greens told us the truth. really?

 

what's the answers to Chris grahams questions then? I must have missed those.

 

if the rfff has to speak as one the no statement should have been issues unless it was supported unanimously. which it clearly wasn't.

 

That's BS if you have 12 guys on a committee the majority rule and that's the line you go with or nothing would get done. The one or two who disagree either lump it and try to change the minds of the rest it at a later date or get out of Dodge.

 

What did Chris ask him?

 

You asked why Green was here he told you to get the club to floatation for the investors take his wages and away to leave us to get on with it.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Its not about blindly supporting the owner. Its about asking the questions and getting the proof of the answers. When you get the answers to your satisfaction and beyond doubt, you then move on to the next item. I believe every single one of the guys involved int he RFFF had major concerns about Green and his band at the start of discussions but as time has went on and every single question has been answered satisfactorily, proof shown, lies spouted elsewhere proven as such, then there comes a time when it is only right and proper to start to give some benefit of the doubt to the owners. Not a blank canvass to go ahead and do what they like, but tentative forward steps together for the good of the club.

 

if its that simple perhaps green or the rfff could let us all in on the secret so we can all move on.