Zappa 0 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) I don't honestly think this is relevant any more Zappa; it's two years since I was in elected office. On the contrary BH, everything is relevant. You didn't answer any of the questions either.... Edited May 17, 2014 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Before rangers 1872 ever existed you could join up to the union of fans. 7000 people did. 60 odd supporters clubs did. As did the union bears. Blue order and rst etc. As I say it's almost certainly the biggest fan group ever in reality. I know you love the formal side of organisations and groups etc but the lack of a constitution here doesn't make it any less of a collective. The aims were published and people joined up. I thought that's what you meant, GS. The point I was trying to make is that according to the web site at least, the UoF and Ibrox 1972 Ltd appear to be synonymous and I don't know how many you are claiming have signed up to deposit or pledge their 2014 – 2015 season ticket money but I doubt it's 1,000 never mind 7,000. Actions speak louder than nil cost sign ups don't you agree? I would agree with you of course that a collective doesn't HAVE to have a constitution but in order to have some rights it certainly would be helpful to have a constitution to define its name, aims & objectives, and operational guidelines. This is particulalry important when it comes to electing leaders, which was my point in relation to Messrs Houston and Graham. Edited May 17, 2014 by BrahimHemdani Spelling error. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I thought that's what you meant, GS. The point I was trying to make is that according to the web site at least, the UoF and Ibrox 1972 Ltd appear to be synonomous and I don't know how many you are claiming have signed up to deposit or pledge their 2014 – 2015 season ticket money but I doubt it's 1,000 never mind 7,000. Actions speak louder than nil cost sign ups don't you agree? I would agree with you of course that a collective doesn't HAVE to have a constitution but in order to have some rights it certainly would be helpful to have a constitution to define its name, aims & objectives, and operational guidelines. This is particulalry important when it comes to electing leaders. All its aims were stated. I quoted some of them to rab earlier. I actually think there will be significantly more than 1000 sign ups to rangers1972 now. It's turned out to be surprisingly popular among the fans I know. The fact the board are now entertaining them will help significantly as well I suspect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 All its aims were stated. I quoted some of them to rab earlier. I actually think there will be significantly more than 1000 sign ups to rangers1972 now. It's turned out to be surprisingly popular among the fans I know. The fact the board are now entertaining them will help significantly as well I suspect. I agree with your last point; but we'll see how far this "entertaining" goes because the opposite will also be true I'd suspect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Rabbits out the hat now though. The fans have the scent of blood. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Rabbits out the hat now though. The fans have the scent of blood. Wascally wabid webel wabbits! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 On the contrary BH, everything is relevant. You didn't answer any of the questions either.... Such as what I had for breakfast for example? I'll tell you what's relevant to the point you were trying to make, Zappa. I was duly elected (and in one case co-opted) to all the positions I held under constitutions based on the Co-op model rules approved by the members of the organisations concerned. So far as I am aware neither the UoF nor the SoS has a constitution and neither Mr Graham nor Mr Houston have been elected by anyone to do anything. No doubt you'll correct me if I'm wrong on any of that. Meantime, I'll bid you good day, I have grass to cut and a car to wash. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted May 17, 2014 Author Share Posted May 17, 2014 I I would agree with you of course that a collective doesn't HAVE to have a constitution but in order to have some rights it certainly would be helpful to have a constitution to define its name, aims & objectives, and operational guidelines. This is particulalry important when it comes to electing leaders, which was my point in relation to Messrs Houston and Graham. Who says they are leaders? It seems to me that they are representatives, decided by the various bodies that make it up. Constitution? Get real. Why does it need a constitution? It's possible UoF could fold tomorrow if they achieved their aims. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted May 17, 2014 Author Share Posted May 17, 2014 So you agree that neither the UoF nor the SoS are democratic organisations? The UoF is a collection of democratic organisation. I wouldn't describe the UoF as an organisation. As for SoS, I'm sure it's 2 members reach consensus in its decisions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,185 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Show it in a way that doesn't put the club's existence at stake will do me This is where the sp.ivs have been clever. Many of their direct or indirect 'earners' are tied in with fan spend, money that is traditionally regarded as 'funding the club'. Look at the argument that goes.... A. Where has the 70M gone ? B. It's all accounted for in accounts audited by Deloittes. My question would be: Can you see proportional benefit to the club from the 70m spent ? I don't think anyone could objectively answer 'yes'. So, where has it gone ? In the business review, Graham Wallace made a point of mentioning "onerous contracts" which RIFC or/and TRFC are tied into and obviously are not weighted in favour of the club. Apparently some or all of these contracts were signed without the presence of lawyers. These may represent a 'lead weight' for the club going forward and an excellent earner for others. So we come back to where we started, your quoted post above. We are left in a situation whereby to fund the club's continued existence, we will also be the cash cow for those on the favourable side of the 'onerous contracts', a lead weight that means constant austerity. Over and above that we still have the bonus culture alive and kicking. Problem is with the above, the club will enter a downward spiral that will end in a dark place. So when you speak of "existence", bear that in mind. There are rumours that the beneficiaries of some of the onerous contracts reside in the Easdale Proxies. 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.