Minutes of the First Meeting of the Rangers Fans Board held on 6 October 2014

[Frankie 8,674]

I think the vast majority of the criticism and questions of BH on here have been fair and constructive enough. I agree that elsewhere that criticism becomes too personal and I certainly respect BH for continuing to work hard despite such unfair attention.

 

However, as I've already privately mentioned to him, I do feel he has to rethink his approach on some matters. Perhaps take the odd breath between suggesting things and raising certain issues which I'm sure he knows will be controversial. I'm not saying BH should ignore any requests in this new position but perhaps be prepared to take a back seat from time to time to allow the process to move forward. For example, by occasionally sticking to matters in which he was directly elected for.

 

Again, I and others appreciate the difficult position he (and the rest of the board has) but if the RFB is allowed to turn into the Alan Harris show then no-one will win out of it - least of all him. Obviously that criticism can go both ways though as too many people are using his involvement to automatically label the exercise as pointless. That may well be the case but we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

 

Finally, as always, if anyone is unhappy with any post, then you can report it easily for our team to address where and when appropriate!

Edited November 6, 2014 by Frankie

[barca72 440]

I think the vast majority of the criticism and questions of BH on here have been fair and constructive enough. I agree that elsewhere that criticism becomes too personal and I certainly respect BH for continuing to work hard despite such unfair attention.

 

However, as I've already privately mentioned to him, I do feel he has to rethink his approach on some matters. Perhaps take the odd breath between suggesting things and raising certain issues which I'm sure he knows will be controversial. I'm not saying BH should ignore any requests in this new position but perhaps be prepared to take a back seat from time to time to allow the process to move forward. For example, by occasionally sticking to matters in which he was directly elected for.

 

Again, I and others appreciate the difficult position he (and the rest of the board has) but if the RFB is allowed to turn into the Alan Harris show then no-one will win out of it - least of all him. Obviously that criticism can go both ways though as too many people are using his involvement to automatically label the exercise as pointless. That may well be the case but we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

 

 

In that vein then, maybe we could have someone else from this forum and BH'S colleague on the RFB - namely ForlansSister - be good enough to give us the report and explain the minutes from the next meeting.

This would surely share the workload for both reps, given that there is no secretary in place yet for the RFB. Would you be prepared to take on this time and effort FS?

[buster. 5,267]

I think the vast majority of the criticism and questions of BH on here have been fair and constructive enough. I agree that elsewhere that criticism becomes too personal and I certainly respect BH for continuing to work hard despite such unfair attention.

 

However, as I've already privately mentioned to him, I do feel he has to rethink his approach on some matters. Perhaps take the odd breath between suggesting things and raising certain issues which I'm sure he knows will be controversial. I'm not saying BH should ignore any requests in this new position but perhaps be prepared to take a back seat from time to time to allow the process to move forward. For example, by occasionally sticking to matters in which he was directly elected for.

 

Again, I and others appreciate the difficult position he (and the rest of the board has) but if the RFB is allowed to turn into the Alan Harris show then no-one will win out of it - least of all him. Obviously that criticism can go both ways though as too many people are using his involvement to automatically label the exercise as pointless. That may well be the case but we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

 

 

It is my opinion and that of many other fans that if BH has hopes for the RFB to be a constructive force, then he as an individual shouldn't stand for election as an office bearer. That isn't to say he couldn't do a good job on behalf of the interests of away fans, for which he was elected.

 

There tends to be reasons why people come with attached 'baggage', it doesn't just casually appear from behind a bush. When large numbers of people have doubts about the suitability of X for a certain post it is for a reason(s) and then when such doubts are immediately fueled with the present, it's perhaps time to take stock.

 

To be indefatigable on the messageboards isn't enough, the RFB needs office bearers that have an unbiased and open outlook regards the 'lot' and interests of all the supporters.

 

Whilst fully realising that it is a decision for BH alone, I hope that he will consider the situation and see the RFB as being more important than any personal ambitions.

[Frankie 8,674]

In that vein then, maybe we could have someone else from this forum and BH'S colleague on the RFB - namely ForlansSister - be good enough to give us the report and explain the minutes from the next meeting.

This would surely share the workload for both reps, given that there is no secretary in place yet for the RFB. Would you be prepared to take on this time and effort FS?

 

I'm happy for any of the reps on the board to post information and answer as many or as few questions as they like on here. I don't expect anything of BH or FS in that regard and thank them both for taking the time to assist those interested in the scheme.

[Frankie 8,674]

It is my opinion and that of many other fans that if BH has hopes for the RFB to be a constructive force, then he as an individual shouldn't stand for election as an office bearer. That isn't to say he couldn't do a good job on behalf of the interests of away fans, for which he was elected.

 

There tends to be reasons why people come with attached 'baggage', it doesn't just casually appear from behind a bush. When large numbers of people have doubts about the suitability of X for a certain post it is for a reason(s) and then when such doubts are immediately fueled with the present, it's perhaps time to take stock.

 

To be indefatigable on the messageboards isn't enough, the RFB needs office bearers that have an unbiased and open outlook regards the 'lot' and interests of all the supporters.

 

Whilst realising that it is a decision for BH, I hope that he will consider the situation and see the RFB as being more important than any personal ambitions.

 

I don't think overly large numbers of people think BH has baggage - if they did he wouldn't have been elected into the role. Thus, it's entirely up to him and his colleagues on the RFB to decide whether or not he's suitable as an office-bearer.

 

I think we're in danger of confusing a few people who dislike the guy for historic reasons for hundreds of people who don't know the true story or couldn't care less.

 

None of us know the truth about why there is bad blood between BH and others. Yes, we may have read the various spats on here, FF and anywhere else but only a few were directly involved and I know from personal experience that such divisions can rarely ever be communicated or absorbed accurately because people will automatically make assumptions for whatever reason - perhaps loyalty to certain folk or perhaps the opposite.

 

To be clear, there's no doubt in my mind BH has been done a disservice in the way he's been treated since his problems with the RST but there's also no doubt that he's clever enough to appreciate his involvement in subsequent projects will always be viewed suspiciously by some as opposed to sympathetically. In that vein, he does need to consider how he approaches some issues but neither should anyone be pressuring the fella to remove his undoubted expertise either. Not when there is an obvious dearth in obtaining qualified reps for such roles.

 

I'd say the same if it was Mark Dingwall in this position or even FS who, once again, depending on your viewpoint may be considered to have similar baggage for want if a better word. And once again, the rest of us have a responsibility to be objective and fair in our criticisms. Balance is vital and, by and large, I'm comfortable that this forum has it.

[Rangersitis 0]

It is my opinion and that of many other fans that if BH has hopes for the RFB to be a constructive force, then he as an individual shouldn't stand for election as an office bearer. That isn't to say he couldn't do a good job on behalf of the interests of away fans, for which he was elected.

 

There tends to be reasons why people come with attached 'baggage', it doesn't just casually appear from behind a bush. When large numbers of people have doubts about the suitability of X for a certain post it is for a reason(s) and then when such doubts are immediately fueled with the present, it's perhaps time to take stock.

 

To be indefatigable on the messageboards isn't enough, the RFB needs office bearers that have an unbiased and open outlook regards the 'lot' and interests of all the supporters.

 

Whilst fully realising that it is a decision for BH alone, I hope that he will consider the situation and see the RFB as being more important than any personal ambitions.

 

That is what is important, not some ancient RST spat which is allowed to fester on FF, while being held up as his badge of honour on RM. Both are equally pathetic.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I am not surprised that you might think so but I couldn't possibly agree.

 

I am pretty sure that some members of the RFB are not active on any forums, I am active on two; I would be very surprised to learn that any are active on four; but in any event I do not think it is in any way necessary and it is certainly not a requirement.

When you're pm'ing and taking advise from the people that you are, it's very hard to take your objectivity seriously.

[buster. 5,267]

I don't think overly large numbers of people think BH has baggage - if they did he wouldn't have been elected into the role. Thus, it's entirely up to him and his colleagues on the RFB to decide whether or not he's suitable as an office-bearer.

 

I think we're in danger of confusing a few people who dislike the guy for historic reasons for hundreds of people who don't know the true story or couldn't care less.

 

None of us know the truth about why there is bad blood between BH and others. Yes, we may have read the various spats on here, FF and anywhere else but only a few were directly involved and I know from personal experience that such divisions can rarely ever be communicated or absorbed accurately because people will automatically make assumptions for whatever reason - perhaps loyalty to certain folk or perhaps the opposite.

 

To be clear, there's no doubt in my mind BH has been done a disservice in the way he's been treated since his problems with the RST but there's also no doubt that he's clever enough to appreciate his involvement in subsequent projects will always be viewed suspiciously by some as opposed to sympathetically. In that vein, he does need to consider how he approaches some issues but neither should anyone be pressuring the fella to remove his undoubted expertise either. Not when there is an obvious dearth in obtaining qualified reps for such roles.

 

I'd say the same if it was Mark Dingwall in this position or even FS who, once again, depending on your viewpoint may be considered to have similar baggage for want if a better word. And once again, the rest of us have a responsibility to be objective and fair in our criticisms. Balance is vital and, by and large, I'm comfortable that this forum has it.

 

I stand by my post and it's wording but recognise that the main body of the support passes on the politics, as it did when voting for the RFB. However it does so for nearly everything and that isn't reason to say there is or isn't anything to see.

 

You say in balance that "he's clever enough to appreciate his involvement in subsequent projects will always be viewed suspiciously by some as opposed to sympathetically", that suspicion doesn't arise from 'the nothing' just as some will go overboard in their vitriol.

Short of making lists from the past, we won't get much further with it on this thread, only history shows it's not wise to forget it.

 

I would strongly take issue with you regards you associating FS with the word "baggage" or at least without the qualification that any such "baggage" would be a term used by those in and around the executive board at the club. In our situation, are fans who prefer for the club board to be allowed a cloak of secrecy beyond what is in the Companies Act to be taken seriously ?

ie. "bagagge" that was in the interests of the supporter looking for transparency.

 

 

 

Forgetting individuals for a moment.

 

It boils down to the interests of the fan.

It shouldn't be about a fansboard that is allowed to serve the macro interests of the club in a devious and characteristic way, wholly in keeping with the past few years, ie. club agenda and gulible fans giving the benefit of the doubt for the Xth time.

 

With that in mind there are many 'active issues' to get on with regards the present.

The RFB needs office bearers that have an unbiased and open outlook regards the 'lot' and interests of all the supporters, not just some and certainly not the club.

It needs significant independence, not significant club control.

Edited November 6, 2014 by buster.

[Frankie 8,674]

I stand by my post and it's wording but recognise that the main body of the support passes on the politics, as it did when voting for the RFB. However it does so for nearly everything and that isn't reason to say there is or isn't anything to see.

 

You say in balance that "he's clever enough to appreciate his involvement in subsequent projects will always be viewed suspiciously by some as opposed to sympathetically", that suspicion doesn't arise from 'the nothing' just as some will go overboard in their vitriol.

Short of making lists from the past, we won't get much further with it on this thread, only history shows it's not wise to forget it.

 

I would strongly take issue with you regards you associating FS with the word "baggage" or at least without the qualification that any such "baggage" would be a term used by those in and around the executive board at the club. In our situation, are fans who prefer for the club board to be allowed a cloak of secrecy beyond what is in the Companies Act to be taken seriously ?

ie. "bagagge" that was in the interests of the supporter looking for transparency.

 

 

Forgetting individuals for a moment.

 

It boils down to the interests of the fan.

It shouldn't be about a fansboard that is allowed to serve the macro interests of the club in a devious and characteristic way, wholly in keeping with the past few years, ie. club agenda and gulible fans giving the benefit of the doubt for the Xth time.

 

With that in mind there are many things to get on with regards the present.

The RFB needs office bearers that have an unbiased and open outlook regards the 'lot' and interests of all the supporters, not just some and certainly not the club.

It needs significant independence, not significant club control.

 

In general terms I agree with you.

 

With respect to 'baggage', clearly that's a subjective term. When it comes to FS, for you and I, it's inappropriate as we are looking for transparency but, for some, as we've seen on other forums they see him as a trouble-maker. The same can be said for BH's background - he also was arguably looking for transparency but others view it as mischief-making.

 

It's all relative. However, of course and without reservation I completely agree that we need the strongest possible characters involved here. And they simply must be objective, indepedent and sensible in how they approach their role. In that sense, it's still early days so there's plenty time for criticism should anyone be shown not to have such qualities.

 

After all, I think we're all agreed, it's not as if the RFB will change the club's direction overnight - if at all.

[buster. 5,267]

In general terms I agree with you.

 

With respect to 'baggage', clearly that's a subjective term. When it comes to FS, for you and I, it's inappropriate as we are looking for transparency but, for some, as we've seen on other forums they see him as a trouble-maker. The same can be said for BH's background - he also was arguably looking for transparency but others view it as mischief-making.

 

It's all relative. However, of course and without reservation I completely agree that we need the strongest possible characters involved here. And they simply must be objective, indepedent and sensible in how they approach their role. In that sense, it's still early days so there's plenty time for criticism should anyone be shown not to have such qualities.

 

After all, I think we're all agreed, it's not as if the RFB will change the club's direction overnight - if at all.

 

 

I fully understand that there are those who see FS as a 'trouble-maker' but the day 'neutrality' is born from such a relatively small band of supporters who champion corporate secrecy and funnily enough have such an obviously poor track record of judgement calls, is a sad one. Conversley, a success for those club advisors in 'PR', who I believe to be, in part behind the macro concepts goals for the RFB (of which I go into more detail in #215).

 

A spade is a spade and I think it more informative to look at the numbers who didn't renew or purchase ST's in the summer. The lack of transparency and ensuing lack of trust being IMO, the most important factor with on-pitch issues coming second.

 

 

You say it's early days and it is but there have already been many issues highlighted and criticised that lead to strong opinions based on the present. We should learn to trust our judgement and not automatically give the benefit of the doubt, it hasn't served us well.

Edited November 6, 2014 by buster.