U of F Statement

[Hildy 0]

The situation regarding the Assembly is complicated by the fact that the RFFF monies are held in the Assembly bank account.

Indeed it is. Maybe we'll see some movement with regard to finding something to spend it on soon, to hasten its winding up.

[Rangersitis 0]

You'll notice I'm talking about the UoF here, of which the RST is a part. An attempt has been made by different groups to speak in a coordinated manner, which is surely a degree of progress.

 

You have just slagged off the new RFB as being the next incarnation of The Assembly, you know, that group who also come under the UoF umbrella.

[Stimpy 0]

Before SoS and UoF I felt the three main fan groups making collective statements had better impact. As measure, although crude, any statement put out generated large RTs and likes on social media which reached out to 100s of 1000s of people. Looking at where statements are published now the reach is far less.

 

the following are in our support:

Association

Trust

Assembley

RFFF

RF

UBs

TBO

New fans board

SoS

 

The Assembly, formed to curtail the RST, is an umbrella group which is under the Umberella of the UoF.

 

The RF is a separatist group from the RST regardless of what anyone claims. I saw. I heard.

 

The UB and TBO were together but recently split.

 

The RFFF was and still is a terrible idea which did not help in admin.

 

The oldest and traditionally well respected is the Association but they're behind the times in terms of engagement and profile.

 

SoS are a protest group that has little chance of longevity.

 

My honest opinion is that we only need the RST and a restructured, modernised Association.

 

The new fans board has very little support

 

Toxic, one little man, has beaten us thus far.

[Hildy 0]

You have just slagged off the new RFB as being the next incarnation of The Assembly, you know, that group who also come under the UoF umbrella.

Once the Assembly stopped being funded by the club, which cost around £35,000 a year I believe, it lingered on and became part of the UoF, but it had no real purpose or direction after that. If it had gone, we would hardly have noticed. Maybe it has gone - the club won't tell us.

[Hildy 0]

Before SoS and UoF I felt the three main fan groups making collective statements had better impact. As measure, although crude, any statement put out generated large RTs and likes on social media which reached out to 100s of 1000s of people. Looking at where statements are published now the reach is far less.

 

the following are in our support:

Association

Trust

Assembley

RFFF

RF

UBs

TBO

New fans board

SoS

 

The Assembly, formed to curtail the RST, is an umbrella group which is under the Umberella of the UoF.

 

The RF is a separatist group from the RST regardless of what anyone claims. I saw. I heard.

 

The UB and TBO were together but recently split.

 

The RFFF was and still is a terrible idea which did not help in admin.

 

The oldest and traditionally well respected is the Association but they're behind the times in terms of engagement and profile.

 

SoS are a protest group that has little chance of longevity.

 

My honest opinion is that we only need the RST and a restructured, modernised Association.

 

The new fans board has very little support

 

Toxic, one little man, has beaten us thus far.

That's a reasonable summing up.

[Rangersitis 0]

Once the Assembly stopped being funded by the club, which cost around £35,000 a year I believe, it lingered on and became part of the UoF, but it had no real purpose or direction after that. If it had gone, we would hardly have noticed. Maybe it has gone - the club won't tell us.

 

That just shows the farce that exists even within the UoF.

 

How can they lay claim to an organisation which doesn't exist, or if it does, has always been regarded as a Murray-inspired entity aimed at killing the aims of the RST - even though they legitimised it's existence by signing up to it?

[Rangersitis 0]

Before SoS and UoF I felt the three main fan groups making collective statements had better impact. As measure, although crude, any statement put out generated large RTs and likes on social media which reached out to 100s of 1000s of people. Looking at where statements are published now the reach is far less.

 

the following are in our support:

Association

Trust

Assembley

RFFF

RF

UBs

TBO

New fans board

SoS

 

The Assembly, formed to curtail the RST, is an umbrella group which is under the Umberella of the UoF.

 

The RF is a separatist group from the RST regardless of what anyone claims. I saw. I heard.

 

The UB and TBO were together but recently split.

 

The RFFF was and still is a terrible idea which did not help in admin.

 

The oldest and traditionally well respected is the Association but they're behind the times in terms of engagement and profile.

 

SoS are a protest group that has little chance of longevity.

 

My honest opinion is that we only need the RST and a restructured, modernised Association.

 

The new fans board has very little support

 

Toxic, one little man, has beaten us thus far.

 

Whether the reasons given are justified, and many are, the RST will never be accepted by a large section of the support. If mass share ownership is to be successful, it will need to come from another direction.

[Stimpy 0]

Whether the reasons given are justified, and many are, the RST will never be accepted by a large section of the support. If mass share ownership is to be successful, it will need to come from another direction.

 

I agree. Fans having a major say will only come about through the club being supportive. For that to happen, it'll take friendly right minded people to use the official channels.

[Hildy 0]

Whether the reasons given are justified, and many are, the RST will never be accepted by a large section of the support. If mass share ownership is to be successful, it will need to come from another direction.

RF won't be accepted either.

 

We have ground to a halt, stagnating in our our disorder.

 

If the fan groups can't co-operate, as the UoF Is at least trying to do, we will be spectators at the club's funeral.

 

God knows the club is in a mess, but parochialism within our own ranks is worsening an already desperate situation.

 

The UoF should extend an invitation to this new fan board to be represented within its ranks.

[Zappa 0]

"Following the publication of updated holdings in Rangers International Football Club PLC, the Union of Fans feel it is important to continue to highlight the position of Sandy Easdale.

 

Mr Easdale and his associates have invested just enough to keep them above the 25% mark required to hold a veto over any inward investment to the club via a further, more substantial, share offer. Despite owning only around 5% of the club himself, Sandy Easdale claims to hold proxy voting rights for around 26%. We have long been concerned that Mr Easdale refuses to disclose who he actually holds these proxies for and instead disguises them through Beaufort Nominees.

 

Mr Easdale's recent meeting with convicted fraudster Rafat Rizvi would lead us to believe that some of those proxy voting rights may be held on behalf of Mr Rizvi. It is also clear from this recent announcement, despite PR stories placed in the media to the contrary, that Mr Easdale has not purchased Charles Green's shares.

 

We are therefore in a position where Mr Easdale appears to hold, through Beaufort Nominees, proxies for people such as Charles Green, Rafat Rizvi and Imran Ahmad. Our concern is that Mr Easdale will continue to act, as he always has done, in the interests of those shareholders and not in the interests of the wider shareholder base and the club itself.

 

We have been clear that we feel that Mr Easdale should be removed as a club director but the PLC board appear to be unwilling or unable to enact that much needed change. Regardless, Mr Easdale is in a position, with the backing of shareholders who appear desperate to mask their identities, to block much needed investment into Rangers.

 

We would ask Mr Easdale to confirm publicly that he and his associates will not oppose any resolution at the upcoming AGM which would allow fresh investment from those who care about the future of our club. If Mr Easdale ignores this request or refuses to answer unequivocally then, in the near future, we will recommend what course of action we believe fans should take.

 

We are also concerned at newspaper reports that the annual accounts and therefore the AGM may be delayed. We would ask the PLC board to clarify if this is the case and to explain why, after what they described as a successful fund raising, there would be any reason to delay publication of the accounts."

 

That's a good statement from the UoF.