simplythebest 0 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Because they wanted a vote?Well yes but more the way I've heard they've gone about it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 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? No Tom - it would be entirely irrelevant. There is far too much focus on individuals and groups and too little on probity. There is a constitution for the operating of the RFFFF monies, and the set of circumstances which was progressed to a vote by general meeting, was outwith the remit of the constitution. This was the feeling on numerous forums, including FF I may add. The sensible decision would have been to set up a separate account and allow persons to donate to that in respect of Craig's legal costs. Or they could have been really sensible and deferred announcing any decision until they learned the outcome of the meeting that same night, between the 2 concerned parties, and thus saved all this nonsense that has subsequently transpired. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) No Tom - it would be entirely irrelevant. There is far too much focus on individuals and groups and too little on probity. There is a constitution for the operating of the RFFFF monies' date=' and the set of circumstances which was progressed to a vote by general meeting, was outwith the remit of the constitution. This was the feeling on numerous forums, including FF I may add. The sensible decision would have been to set up a separate account and allow persons to donate to that in respect of Craig's legal costs. Or they could have been really sensible and deferred announcing any decision until they learned the outcome of the meeting that same night, between the 2 concerned parties, and thus saved all this nonsense that has subsequently transpired.[/quote'] The RFFF has a constitution? Is it published anywhere? Edited March 31, 2014 by Hildy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 No Tom - it would be entirely irrelevant. There is far too much focus on individuals and groups and too little on probity. There is a constitution for the operating of the RFFFF monies' date=' and the set of circumstances which was progressed to a vote by general meeting, was outwith the remit of the constitution. This was the feeling on numerous forums, including FF I may add. The sensible decision would have been to set up a separate account and allow persons to donate to that in respect of Craig's legal costs. Or they could have been really sensible and deferred announcing any decision until they learned the outcome of the meeting that same night, between the 2 concerned parties, and thus saved all this nonsense that has subsequently transpired.[/quote'] Entirely agree with your separate account remarks, D'art. However, Mr Easdale, in acting in the way he did, is a different issue. On this forum, the contributions tend to be more mature than in some other places, but posters, nevertheless, are not hesitant about airing disappointment when a custodian of the club, acts in ways, which can tarnish the reputation of our club. I just felt that Mr Easdale's threatened action was excessive and if the fans groups want to release statements, it seemed reasonable to expect them to cover all aspects of this sorry business. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I understand what you are saying Tom, and find myself agreeing with much of it. There are aspects of the SOS campaign Im not comfortable with - nonetheless I felt moved to contact Craig and offer him some advice. My own feelings were the pair of them were suffering from a testosterone overload and some common sense could avoided much of the silliness which transpired. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Apologies. Edited March 31, 2014 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 So now it seems those that issued this have been banished from NARSA I go back to my original view on this its all about politics and opportunism from a certain agenda. Banished ??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Banished ??? Sorry I take that back. It seems NARSA are now banishing any members who disagree on this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Sorry I take that back. It seems NARSA are now banishing any members who disagree on this. Could they not just fight it out over a round or two of golf? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 NARSA is going to tear it's self apart over this nonsense. A majority of a committee agree to a vote that never happens and we descend into this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.