Rangersitis 0 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 What is the RFB about? Undermine fans groups? Control and steer fan opinion in favour of the board? Genuine attempt at fan representation? I was sceptical but hopeful. Sadly, it appears to be getting further and further away. This whole thing becomes more sinister with each passing day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Who are these "unelected" groups that RFB are so concerned about? Is it SOS? Any others? Seems to me that the RFB are showing a great degree of arrogance on this. What business is it of the RFB; 1. What groups ask to speak to the club. 2. What groups the club decide to speak to. RFB should keep in mind that they only speak for those who elected them plus any individuals/grouos who give them permission to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,185 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 What is the RFB about? Undermine fans groups? Control and steer fan opinion in favour of the board? Genuine attempt at fan representation? Like so many things, I don't think the answer is black or white, it's not an either or. The club wouldn't have put it forward unless there was a 'net gain' for them and then you have to consider the Irvine influence in it's planning back in late 2013. So yes, it was always going to be about making it 'easier' for the board. However at the sametime it's possible that the RFB could do some good wrt the individuals responsibilities, eg. disabled supporters, away fans. Regards seeking more transparency and having difficult questions answered, we'll soon know how far the executive board of the club will be prepared to go............ Don't bet your last fiver on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 From those minutes it seems to be a combination of irrelevant bureaucracy and undermining any 'detractors' (ie people not afraid to speak out). Is it Monty Python or the film Brazil where there's a joke that sees a character having to fill out a form to fill out another form? This reminds me of that. Worrying about pedantic nonsense when we have a club torn apart. Letting forums such as RM steer you is dangerous, especially if the comments were made in their finance section. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Sometimes we can see nefarious goings-on where there might not be any. The overarching idea behind this RFB thing was to create a socio type of link between club & fan. Paying fan, ST fan, not online anonymous greeting face. Therefore, to drive take-up, granting this RFB 'exclusivity' makes sense from their point of view. Added to which is the self interest of some of the board members. No doubt some people inside the club saw and see this as a means to an evil end, but in all truth events have overtaken it - the chances of Ashley being as behind this as Wallace was (even though he left the meeting early, cheers) are zero. The chances of his people giving any meaningful answers to the RFB are zero. The code of conduct was broken even before the minutes were published. It's a busted flush due to events and probably always was in any case. But - if the club wanted to engage before this board existed, they could have done so. If they wanted to engage now, they could do so. Blaming this RFB for this or that group, or this or that fan, not getting a hearing is futile. Put your agenda to one side and, if it's not already too late, worry about what's best for the club rather than your ego. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,185 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 No doubt some people inside the club saw and see this as a means to an evil end, but in all truth events have overtaken it - the chances of Ashley being as behind this as Wallace was (even though he left the meeting early, cheers) are zero. The chances of his people giving any meaningful answers to the RFB are zero. The code of conduct was broken even before the minutes were published. It's a busted flush due to events and probably always was in any case. . Agree with part of that Andy but on the specific point, comparing Ashely and Wallace is comparing apples to cabbages. Ashely will view events from afar and will have his minions take care of the frontline and that includes controlling and management of supporters perceptions and behaviour towards the club (ie. onside and if not, at least spending money). At Newcastle he has Keith Bishop as his spindoctor whose firm take care of much of this. (as per Jack Irvine has done at Ibrox). ie. Ashely won't bother himself but will have others do it for him. Wrt to the RFB. As I said earlier, both 11 months ago and on this thread. At the time of design, the macro concept was to better 'control' the supporter perception with Irvine was involved in it's broader design. It would seem that he is still employed directly or indirectly within the soap opera and his efforts remain where they have been for years, on the continuous line of Green&Co and Easdale block (who support MA). They will maintain efforts to make the RFB work for them (the club board) whilst it's possible. We will see what further suggestions and proposals come from it and what kind of office bearers emerge to steer the RFB. What we have seen thusfar doesn't aleaviate the fears that many had. It's a shame because there are some positives to be had from it. Moreover the individual categories and questioning the RIFC/TRFC board (remains to be seen what comes from that). Bottomline though, it's the same old story. When our executive board have their own interests ahead of that of the club, then that club won't go anywhere far and transparency and trust between club and support will almost certainly remain at a premium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Hang in there, BH, and thanks for taking the time and effort to give us a report on the proceedings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) No, and the fact that you are attempting restricting the Board to speaking to 12 fans only Is concerning. You weren't elected by all Rangers fans and many were disenfranchised. Some fans may wish to raise concerns through means other than those set out by this set of directors. It limits issues being raised and with all due respect, there may be issues that need to be raised by those with more experience in that area than the current 12 possess. We have had various meetings over the past few years with groups of fans (I have been at 2 or 3) when we had the opportunity to express concerns and we currently have the fans elected trying to prevent that sort of thing. It comes across as elitism and is not what the RFB should be all about. I'm not sure where you got that from, BD, but the suggestion that was supported at the meeting would not restrict the directors from speaking to any elected group. However, I would respectfully point you to the first objective of "The Fans Board (which is to) provide a platform for supporters to communicate directly with key Club staff in a structured manner" The RFB didn't set that out the Club did and the RFB will have to work within that and other parameters. I would reiterate that ANY fan can contact ANY member of the RFB with ANY relevant issue, so whilst I agree that some fans were disenfranchised (although the constituency was approx 23,000), none are restricted from raising any issue. So there is no limitation on issues being raised. Also the RFB "may, at its discretion, allow any person (who is not an Elected Representative) who they reasonably consider appropriate, to attend and speak at any meeting of RFB; for the avoidance of doubt, any such person who is invited to attend an RFB meeting shall not be entitled to vote on any matter to be determined by RFB." So whilst the Elected Members may not always have the skills and experience necessary to deal with certain issues, they can call on any person who they feel would be so qualified. Edited November 5, 2014 by BrahimHemdani Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 It would be interesting to hear what your amendments were. I'm very surprised that such a suggestion would have had 'widespread support' on RM, especially since there's a lot of support for VB who've had meetings with Craig Whyte, Charles Green & co as well as Graham Wallace & co over the past few years (if I'm not mistaken). It's also a rather strange notion for the RFB to even consider or suggest defining 'unelected' bodies or groups when so many fans were left out of the RFB election process. We're talking about roughly 15,000 fans who didn't renew their season tickets, many of whom had been ST holders for decades. How many of them do you think signed up to the membership scheme and voted in the RFB elections? Also, since this is a question often asked of other fan groups & bodies, how about providing some numbers based on the actual number of unique voters for the RFB elections? How many people voted? <1000? >1000? >2000? What was the number? Ok. Well, hopefully the remaining and new directors aren't naive enough to agree to narrowing down their face to face channels of communication with the wider fan base solely to a newly formed 'fan board' created by a CEO who has just exited stage left. They were right to raise it, but the minutes suggest that after a response (from who?) you then raised the other suggestion put forward by RM members (which you also happened to agree with), is that right? I am not certain if it's appropriate for me to publish my own amendments but I have nothing to hide so in the interests of transparency I am happy to do so: 4a. In the last sentence add to - but could be easily found "via a hot button" (AF). 4b. After Web forums add "It was agreed that there was no impediment to Board Members participating in Web forums." 9. Add after - good example of RFB can be "seen to be providing two way communication between fans and the Club." 9. RFFF - change wording to "might have some say" (in how monies might be spent). - Insert after - Andrew McCormick is the Chair "and any fans who have concerns about the RFFF should be encouraged to write to him at Rangers address for onward transmission." I don't know the answer to your question about "the actual number of unique voters for the RFB elections"; you would need to ask the Club. The response to the RSA question was given by Irene Munro, Director of Communications and verified by me with her before I passed it on to the enquirers. Again, I'm not sure that it's appropriate to forensically disect the Minutes in this manner but so far as I was concerned the last two issues you mention were not related. I would reiterate that I have done my best to answer your questions as openly and honestly as I can and I have probably gone further than I should, so I hope you will accept this response. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 Hang in there, BH, and thanks for taking the time and effort to give us a report on the proceedings. That's much appreciated, Barca; I feel a bit punch drunk right now; but I'll recover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts