Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

And we have another issue. There are people in NARSA who don't support this in fact quite the opposite and certainly don't want their money back.

 

Indeed and after having a good gander at what's been getting posted elsewhere today it actually seems as though prior to sending out this statement, the people in charge of the NARSA executive, committee or whatever they call it didn't even consult all of their member clubs never mind the actual members themselves.

 

With the calls for resignations highlighting similarities between the NARSA statement and the one by VB, the whole thing begins to seem quite bizarre.

 

Is there a possibility that anyone currently on the RFFF committee has conflicts of interest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, one surprising aspect of both the NARSA and VB statements was a failure to. indicate any disapproval of Sandy Easdale going in so hard on Craig Houston. If they considered that Mr Easdale had acted reasonably that would be disappointing. After saying that, how many of the wider Rangers support here and abroad, really care what either organisation think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RFFF was specifically for the Oldco. So not cured put down.

 

It was for the club, mate.

 

The fact that the club has been moved from a dying company to a new one doesn't change anything.

 

Do you really think the RFFF can spend the money as it likes and then defend itself by saying that the fund was exclusively for the oldco?

 

It was said at the time of the RFFF launch that the money was for the administration period - and beyond.

 

That's where we are now - beyond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rm has had a thread ongoing about the use of the RFFF fund and it's transparency, I posted on it, but my questions was a genuine attempt to ask why the RFFF committee paid some debts and for other things outwith the "administration event". But not for other events like suing some of our enemies forever perpetrating lies against our club. However the agenda was clear virtually from the off, certain RM posters continually questioning the funds and it's committee members integrity.

 

Quote "Bawsburst asked a fair question yesterday about the RFFF accounts and what their intentions was!"

 

The Bawsburst poster is believed to be working on behalf of the certain board members and deliberately working to undermine the fund, the subsequent vote by the committee to ask fund membership and RSC's to back proposals to help SOS and Craig. has led imo to this latest attacks by various agenda driven parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.