Huge RFC Fan Meeting planned

[amms 0]

With all due respect mate, without representation from OUR current board (why?) what did you expect?

 

lots i would say.

 

far to much to summarise.

 

It was a genuine question, I wasn't being facetious. I followed the meeting on the TRS Twitter feed and didn't get the impression from it that much new was said, but I wasn't there so I don't know, hence the question. It felt like it was further enforcing what was already known or had been said before. Not that that's a bad thing.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It was a genuine question, I wasn't being facetious. I followed the meeting on the TRS Twitter feed and didn't get the impression from it that much new was said, but I wasn't there so I don't know, hence the question. It felt like it was further enforcing what was already known or had been said before. Not that that's a bad thing.

 

A lot of it was but info like walter and murray always being out voted and walter no longer able to be in a room with them put flesh on the bones. Irvines wage. Green still involved etc. Its worth watching.

[Davie P 4]

Is anyone who attended going to be able to summarise the key points for those of us unable to attend?

[Frankie 8,367]

Is anyone who attended going to be able to summarise the key points for those of us unable to attend?

 

Key points for me were:

 

- They think Green is still involved

- MM and Walter were constantly outvoted on important issues

- They feel they have the support of Dave King

- They feel any AGM vote would be close

- McColl feels they may have to work alongside existing board rather than remove them

- They'd run club on break even basis; using Euro cash for typical investment outside of share issue(s)

- Points made about scouting, PR, director pledges and asset ring-fencing

- Would support improved fan representation

- Alleged MH earn £40K a month and are on a £100K bonus should the board stay in place after AGM (denied by Irvine last night)

Edited November 29, 2013 by Frankie

[rbr 1,254]

To add to what Frankie posted above , and correct me if I'm wrong on this Frankie ,

 

McColl stated that he thought Stockbridge would be sacrificed and that possibly 2 of the 4 requisditioners would get on , but getting Stockbridge out was key as he is " the gatekeeper"behind whom Greens consortium hide.

 

He also thought it was possible that Somners would get voted off , he stated he couldn't understand either why he took the job nor why has hasn't spoken or voted to any of the 4 nominated .

[Frankie 8,367]

To add to what Frankie posted above , and correct me if I'm wrong on this Frankie ,

 

McColl stated that he thought Stockbridge would be sacrificed and that possibly 2 of the 4 requisditioners would get on , but getting Stockbridge out was key as he is " the gatekeeper"behind whom Greens consortium hide.

 

He also thought it was possible that Somners would get voted off , he stated he couldn't understand either why he took the job nor why has hasn't spoken or voted to any of the 4 nominated .

 

I remember the first part yes but not so sure about the Somers stuff. I may have missed it though.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Yeah the puting ibrox in trust pledge was huge.

 

Directors not being able to gain from commercial deals to ensure they are the best available was also good.

[Zappa 0]

He also thought it was possible that Somners would get voted off , he stated he couldn't understand either why he took the job nor why has hasn't spoken or voted to any of the 4 nominated .

 

Yes, McColl mentioned that he didn't understand why Somers hadn't interviewed the boardroom candidates from the requisitioners' side because that's what a newly appointed independent and impartial Chairman would normally do and what McColl would have done himself. It wasn't an attack on Somers though, it has to be said because McColl was simply responding to a point or question someone else made. That said, he was indeed voicing concerns about the Chairman's independence/impartiality and ultimately his chances of being voted back in.

[Hildy 0]

Finally, after lurking in the shadows for far too long, the requisitioners emerged from the shadows to hold a public meeting - and have it televised live.

Well done to those who made this happen. Gradually, we're joining the 21st century. This was real progress and should be repeated as and when circumstances allow.

The meeting itself went reasonably well, and most of the questions were pertinent and to the point, but while the personnel at the top table earned some much-needed credibiliy, I'm not sure that they have a blueprint other than to bring integrity and honesty to the club - which of course is hugely important.

While Rangers would be a better club with the requisitioners at the helm, I doubt that it will be a more imaginative and innovative club. I worry that it could slip back into tolerating incompetence, having limited ambition, accepting appalling football and being overly diplomatic.

I would like the requisitioners to break a new dawn and revolutionise the club, but I suspect than an outbreak of blazered Rangersitis is likely if they come to dominate the boardroom.

Paul Murray needed a Hibs fan to tell him that the club should have some kind of constitution. It needs more than a constitution - it needs a rebirth as a fully fan-owned entity that has finally given up on luck to deliver trusted ownership to it.

In the meantime, the quiet revolution that is the RST's BuyRangers initiative is surely the path to follow for concerned Rangers fans.

Like the live broadcast the other night, BuyRangers is a constructive move in the right direction. Amidst the bluster and the shenanigans, we're at least getting some things right.