VB met board after UOF meeting

[Super Cooper 0]

The attention the VB's get is totally out of proportion to their size.

 

People talk of 'division'.

I don't see significant division at present, I see the vast majority deeply unhappy with the way the club is being run.

What is new, is that the majority I talk of now includes much of the 'apolitical middle rump' who in good number seem to not have renewed.

 

Perhaps we should give the VB's attention that is proportional to their size.

 

Simply ignore them?

[buster. 5,257]

Simply ignore them?

 

Every individual or group is entitled to their opinion, including the VB's.

 

However given the current situation and arithmetic within,......the easiest way of tackling 'division' within the support is to stop talking about it.

[Frankie 8,652]

The problem being of course that so many of our more representative & rounded fans organisations have aligned themselves behind the UOF - thus making this type of exercise particularly difficult' date=' hence my concern in the original post on this subject.[/quote']

 

It's not difficult whatsoever.

 

Club calls an open meeting and invites a selection of 200 fans with a top table of the CEO, key shareholders and the manager. Almost a mini-AGM if you like.

 

That's being ready to listen. And for all the valid criticism of Green, he certainly didn't shirk from such meetings even if, as proven, it's not that difficult to make them essentially pointless if you have the gift of the gab.

 

However, what is also true is that the status quo is unacceptable. Like the UoF or not, like the VB or not, they account for just a combined 5% of fans. The rest of us have no say.

 

T4C is correct in saying currently around 20,000 season ticket holders are worried (or uncertain) enough about what's happening at the club not to renew. To make no effort to engage with these people in an open and accountable fashion says more than any club or Dave King statement ever could.

[Super Cooper 0]

It was a wee joke mate, an implicit one about their size.

[buster. 5,257]

It was a wee joke mate, an implicit one about their size.

 

Your wee joke was a valid argument when you consider the arithmetic.

[Juancornetto 1]

I de-scummed my social media account and it's a breath of fresh air, no UoF v VB insult swapping, no FGAU1690 etc. I might even take an extended break from online activity when it comes to Rangers, Go "native".

 

Might even buy a paper.

[Frankie 8,652]

It's not all about size - if it was then the RST, Assembly and Association would be ignored at every turn as well.

 

For all their faults, VB are an effective lobbying group which is why the club seem happy to engage with them. Doesn't matter if you have ten members or ten thousand, if you lobby correctly then your voice can be heard. After all we have political parties with minimal members in Scotland which help formulate the way we all live from day to day.

 

By way of a converse comparison, I'm sure FF has ten times the membership of VB but it lacks the same techniques in gaining a seat at the same meeting table. It doesn't have an RSC, it doesn't have it's own share scheme and it doesn't seem to take an active part in politics. As much as its owner has a thumb in every RFC pie, his own website's influence isn't as big as it should be given it's arguably the biggest by far fans platform.

[Frankie 8,652]

I de-scummed my social media account and it's a breath of fresh air, no UoF v VB insult swapping, no FGAU1690 etc. I might even take an extended break from online activity when it comes to Rangers, Go "native".

 

Might even buy a paper.

 

:D Controversial!

 

In recent weeks, I must admit to pruning my own Twitter following list. There was a small number of people who apparently lived for the daily routine of bringing down their fellow fans. It's a shame that many of these appear (and appear has to be emphasised) to be members of VB while their official account also seems to revel in the social media mischief-making. Instead, if they really want to be taken seriously, then they should be leading from the front and removing the kind of insult and abuse that seems to be so prevalent amongst their more frustrating members.

[buster. 5,257]

It's not all about size - if it was then the RST, Assembly and Association would be ignored at every turn as well.

 

For all their faults, VB are an effective lobbying group which is why the club seem happy to engage with them. Doesn't matter if you have ten members or ten thousand, if you lobby correctly then your voice can be heard. After all we have political parties with minimal members in Scotland which help formulate the way we all live from day to day.

 

By way of a converse comparison, I'm sure FF has ten times the membership of VB but it lacks the same techniques in gaining a seat at the same meeting table. It doesn't have an RSC, it doesn't have it's own share scheme and it doesn't seem to take an active part in politics. As much as its owner has a thumb in every RFC pie, his own website's influence isn't as big as it should be given it's arguably the biggest by far fans platform.

 

I don't so much compare groups, Frankie.

 

The differerence at present and the main reason I make this point is precisely because of what those without a group are not doing (renewing).

[Frankie 8,652]

I don't so much compare groups, Frankie.

 

The differerence at present and the main reason I make this point is precisely because of what those without a group are not doing (renewing).

 

So what are you saying? We ignore VB and the UoF because they represent a minority?

 

In that case, how do we formalise the voice of the 20,000 when these people clearly have no interest in being grouped together?

 

Sure, the voice is clear enough by way of their non-renewal but it could be even more powerful than it already is.