Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

The way this all goes on, the board sure knows fine well what supporters think. Doing essentially unlawful stuff doesn't help the SoS' cause one single bit though and might actually put the petition into a shadier light than necessary.

 

It's not unlawful in any way and they clearly aren't listening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unlawful in any way and they clearly aren't listening.

 

However with the apparent legal threat from SE, it means a lot more will know of and sign the petition.

 

 

First you had GW with his Twitter O&G (in some quarters it was called a Q&A).

 

Now it would seem to me as Mr.Easdale wants to get in on the OG trail.

 

 

So not only does the football spend or the executive board spend not give value for money.....neither does the Spinning dept. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Every time someone signs your petition, an email is sent to the decision maker. Here are some ways to find your decision maker's contact information:......"

 

Taken from the Change.org website. Always read the small print! ;-)

 

What does that mean? Firstly, it's not my petition so it's not aimed at me. Secondly, is decision maker defined? The decision maker of the petition?

 

Edit: having to rely on hidden small print is something I'd expect the current board to do. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the term 'indicated' that e-mails would be sent.

 

See the link/petition

 

http://www.change.org/petitions/graham-wallace-give-written-legally-binding-assurances-to-fans-that-ibrox-stadium-will-not-be-sold-or-used-as-security-for-any-loans?recruiter=83833912&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

 

It could be equally argued that had the signer of the petition examined content that at the very least, they would see the 'indication' and have opportunity to contemplate the possibility.

 

Thereafter you go to 'petition precedent' regards similar.

You also have to take into account that the petition has been conducted via change.org and their experience in such matters may or should help petition intiatators stay within certain guidelines/the law.

 

I knew you used "indicated" but that's subjective, and having read it when I signed it, I didn't think for a minute that emails were being generated, so the indications were fairly crap at best. The rest of your post doesn't dispute the facts that I set out in the post.

 

If people think that it was OK for the petition to be set up in this manner then that's their opinion, but as I've said, I don't, and the SoS's lack of disclosure here means that I'll be less inclined to support similar ventures in the future, due to the lack of disclosure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that mean? Firstly, it's not my petition so it's not aimed at me. Secondly, is decision maker defined? The decision maker of the petition?

 

Edit: having to rely on hidden small print is something I'd expect the current board to do. :P

 

No point in regrets now, your name will already have been cross-referenced with the club's database.

 

Chap, chap, chap! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew you used "indicated" but that's subjective, and having read it when I signed it, I didn't think for a minute that emails were being generated, so the indications were fairly crap at best. The rest of your post doesn't dispute the facts that I set out in the post.

 

If people think that it was OK for the petition to be set up in this manner then that's their opinion, but as I've said, I don't, and the SoS's lack of disclosure here means that I'll be less inclined to support similar ventures in the future, due to the lack of disclosure.

 

I appreciate your view and whilst my perspective is different, I can understand it.

 

What I would say is that there had been efforts made to engage with the board and IIRC at the request of GW there was a meeting which resulted in an apparent broken promise to call UoF after the PLC board considered matters discussed at meeting. Thereafter (4 days) followed an in part disengenuous statement from the board.

 

What you have is a fans group looking at all options to try and promote awareness and garner support to oppose and help prevent a selling off of the main assets by a board who clearly can't be trusted. If and when the assets have been transfered/soldthen then it's too late.

 

Regards the legal question I don't see it likely that Mr.Easdale will have much success if he chooses to carry out his threat.

Edited by buster.
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.