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

[Frankie 8,562]

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 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.

 

I'm not saying we should give anyone the benefit of the doubt now or in the future. I'm only saying we need to be fair and objective in the criticisms we offer.

 

With regard to your point about 15,000 people not renewing and the reasons for it, I agree this should be a priority for not only the RFB to investigate but for the club to discuss in full. However, neither can we dismiss the opinions of the 22,000 that did renew and thus may have an alternative view on the politics than you or I.

 

For all its faults, RFC wasn't formed for one particular group so none of us have the right to try and force it into a certain direction or standpoint. We're all entitled to an opinion in that sense. Nevertheless, as said previously, I'd hope it remains independent and accountable to those it represents. I'm pleased that it has provoked so much discussion and clearly there's an appetite (initially at least) to ensure such necessary traits.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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!

 

Thanks for your considered response, Frankie.

 

I take the poiint made by you and others that I will need to do some "filtering" of what I put forward but it is diffiuclt to do that and not be seen to censor legitimate views even if they are controversial.

 

Also whilst PMU is right to suggest that I could easily just say I won't deal with anything unless it comes to the offical email address, I do not agree because Gersnet in particular gave me a public platform to defend my position in 2010, and I have been a regular contributor since then, so I don't see why I should not accept comment from here now. All forms of polite communication including verbal are acceptable as far as I am concerned.

 

It is not my fault if "away fans" have more issues than others, so if I have more points to raise at meetings, then so be it. Also the position can be skewed when a person expresses views on here that they did not express at the meeting and also suggest that I said certain things that I did not.

 

Thanks for continuing to allow me the platform on your forum.

[buster. 5,185]

I'm not saying we should give anyone the benefit of the doubt now or in the future. I'm only saying we need to be fair and objective in the criticisms we offer.

 

With regard to your point about 15,000 people not renewing and the reasons for it, I agree this should be a priority for not only the RFB to investigate but for the club to discuss in full. However, neither can we dismiss the opinions of the 22,000 that did renew and thus may have an alternative view on the politics than you or I.

 

For all its faults, RFC wasn't formed for one particular group so none of us have the right to try and force it into a certain direction or standpoint. We're all entitled to an opinion in that sense. Nevertheless, as said previously, I'd hope it remains independent and accountable to those it represents. I'm pleased that it has provoked so much discussion and clearly there's an appetite (initially at least) to ensure such necessary traits.

 

I think Gersnet has been fair and objective in the criticisms put forward. Probably the most measured and objective debate on the issue in the online Rangers world.

 

I believe the RFB was formed and shaped by the club with the clubs interests at heart. Not forgetting that those at an executive level at the club very much have their own interests as priority. There will be micro benefits for the support but beware of the bigger picture.

 

I'm as convinced of this, as I was that the likes of CW and CG&Co were 'up to it' before they took their seat at Ibrox.

[Frankie 8,562]

Thanks for your considered response, Frankie.

 

I take the poiint made by you and others that I will need to do some "filtering" of what I put forward but it is diffiuclt to do that and not be seen to censor legitimate views even if they are controversial.

 

Also whilst PMU is right to suggest that I could easily just say I won't deal with anything unless it comes to the offical email address, I do not agree because Gersnet in particular gave me a public platform to defend my position in 2010, and I have been a regular contributor since then, so I don't see why I should not accept comment from here now. All forms of polite communication including verbal are acceptable as far as I am concerned.

 

It is not my fault if "away fans" have more issues than others, so if I have more points to raise at meetings, then so be it. Also the position can be skewed when a person expresses views on here that they did not express at the meeting and also suggest that I said certain things that I did not.

 

Thanks for continuing to allow me the platform on your forum.

 

To be clear, I'm not asking you to censor any questions people come to you with and, in fact, it may help if some of the more ludicrous stuff is highlighted early on to ensure quick judgement by your peers on the board.

 

What I am suggesting is that when issues not directly related to your representative position are raised to you, it may be worth passing them onto the secretary for them to administrate thus giving some breathing space between yourself and issues we all know your background may inflame. Again, I don't suggest this because I feel your involvement is inappropriate or that you should be exempt from any debates but simply to stop people inferring you're automatically the source (or go-to-guy) for mischief-making stuff unrelated to your position.

 

With respect to where you source your information, well that's entirely up to you and I agree all methods should be used. However, I also think there is a fine line between anonymous debate on forums and Joe Bloggs actually contacting you directly with their details as part of their request. For example, I'm not sure raising an unsubstantiated generic concern from this place or RM is the same as dealing directly with a season ticket holder who has emailed you to highlight an issue at away matches.

 

Finally, I'm not saying this to undermine your position but to actually strengthen it and that of the RFB.

[Frankie 8,562]

I think Gersnet has been fair and objective in the criticisms put forward. Probably the most measured and objective debate on the issue in the online Rangers world.

 

I believe the RFB was formed and shaped by the club with the clubs interests at heart. Not forgetting that those at an executive level at the club very much have their own interests as priority. There will be micro benefits for the support but beware of the bigger picture.

 

I'm as convinced of this, as I was that the likes of CW and CG&Co were 'up to it' before they took their seat at Ibrox.

 

Again, I don't disagree with you. I'd say it's been obvious from the days of the Assembly that the club will attempt to control and dictate fan engagement - it's not a new concept. I doubt the RFB will be any different.

 

Hence, all the more reason we don't allow ourselves to shoot the messenger but concentrate on working with these people to ensure the message is put over effectively. In as far is as possible of course.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I did try to get an answer from you before on this, but I do realise that you have been snowed under so may have missed it.

 

Can you please explain to me why it matters whether a fan group has held an election or not. If there are spokesmen/leaders who their followers are happy with, does going through the formalities of a vote make that group any more relevant?

 

While you're changing the minutes, why not go the whole hog and just name Houston and Graham in there? After all, that was the jist of this RM suggestion, one which you have already stated that you agree with.

 

I am sorry if I missed your question, Rangersitis; as you say I pretty much spent two days solid answering points that have been raised into the early hours of the morning including before and after Cowdenbeath.

 

Firstly, can I stress again that i did not raise this issue, I raised it on behalf of others and FS was kind enough to post the full thread from RM. Without spending another hour reading it again, I think certain names were mentioned and one at least was incorrect, inasmuch as Mr Dinnie obviously is an elected person (and perhaps others); the reason I agreed with the general point is twofold:

 

We are fortunate to live in a democracy, whatever your views are on the constituencies etc, I and 11 others were elected to positions on the RFB, so I would suggest we have a certain legitimacy. (Whether or not that should extend to the wider Rangers support is another matter.) Leaders of the RST, RF, the RSA, etc have also been duly elected, so are entitled to speak on behalf of their constituencies. However, if a man stands up on a soapbox (with or without others) or is interviewed on TV as a Rangers fans spokesperson and he was not elected then I do not think he is entitled to that description. He can be called a Rangers fan, if he is one; but no more.

 

The position obviously is exacerbated for those like me who do not agree with that person's position or the position of those he appears to represent. That said, I do not think that the fact I might agree with such a person wuld make his views any more legitimate; he is either elected or not.

 

Secondly how do you know without an election that that person's followers are indeed happy with that person being their spokesperson? History is littered with such people whose rhetoric was louder than their legitimacy and I am not suggesting a comparison between any person you have named and any historic figure. But just because you can shout louder or pronounce a populist view doesn't make your views legitimate. There are others you have not named in Rangers recent history who have been rolled out just because for example they are former players, but that doesn't make their views any more important in my opinion. And yes, I know that's not quite the same point.

 

I also want to reiterate that no member of the Board opposed the proposition on the night.

 

The point about proposing a change to the Minutes is for accuracy. I did not name any individuals on the night so I will not be reqesting such a change. I know exactly what I said because I have the notes I read from. They will be the basis of my amendment.

 

I realise that you may not agree but I have answered your question and apologise again for the delay.

 

I think that the subject of the Minutes has had a good airing so unless there are any fresh points I propose to leave it at that.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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?

 

There will be a Secretary in place as the election is being held at the beginning of the next meeting on the 26th of November.

 

My personal opinion is that I would hope that the Minutes would be in a diffferent format.

 

I am happy to answer anything that I can.

[buster. 5,185]

Again, I don't disagree with you. I'd say it's been obvious from the days of the Assembly that the club will attempt to control and dictate fan engagement - it's not a new concept. I doubt the RFB will be any different.

 

Hence, all the more reason we don't allow ourselves to shoot the messenger but concentrate on working with these people to ensure the message is put over effectively. In as far is as possible of course.

 

The 'messenger' shouldn't have a problem if he were to act in the interests of the fans in an unbiased and open way.

 

However, we already see signs that clubs interests on vital matters seem to be served via suggestions / proposals.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

To be clear, I'm not asking you to censor any questions people come to you with and, in fact, it may help if some of the more ludicrous stuff is highlighted early on to ensure quick judgement by your peers on the board.

 

What I am suggesting is that when issues not directly related to your representative position are raised to you, it may be worth passing them onto the secretary for them to administrate thus giving some breathing space between yourself and issues we all know your background may inflame. Again, I don't suggest this because I feel your involvement is inappropriate or that you should be exempt from any debates but simply to stop people inferring you're automatically the source (or go-to-guy) for mischief-making stuff unrelated to your position.

 

With respect to where you source your information, well that's entirely up to you and I agree all methods should be used. However, I also think there is a fine line between anonymous debate on forums and Joe Bloggs actually contacting you directly with their details as part of their request. For example, I'm not sure raising an unsubstantiated generic concern from this place or RM is the same as dealing directly with a season ticket holder who has emailed you to highlight an issue at away matches.

 

Finally, I'm not saying this to undermine your position but to actually strengthen it and that of the RFB.

 

These are very good points that I will do my best to take on Board.

 

However, I think it is worth noting that "You can contact any one or more of the 12 elected candidates on any issues - they do not have to be issues for that particular category only. ". If someone choses to contact me with a "non away fans issue" then it might be because they think I will deal with it or put it forward when others might not. As most folk know, I have never been shy at coming forward!

 

I have also mentioned (not sure if it was on here) that I have proposed that there be a general or secretary@ mailbox so that folks have a route for concerns to be addressed by the whole board.

 

Whilst one will sometimes know the identity of certain posters, I do agree with you about "anonymous" comment, so in future I may ask from PM or email identification. That said I also had it mind to warn colleagues that email and the source thereof may not always be what it seems!

[MoodyBlue 0]

RSA

RSC's

RST

FF

RFFF

NARSA

RM

VB

UoF

SoS

Gersnet

RFB

etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

We are fragmented beyond belief. Hence why those coming into our club have been able to take the piss knowing full well that we are a dis-organised bunch and will provide no fightback to them.

 

IF we had been united over the past few years, I'd say that this mob would have been run out of town long before now. But we started from a position of weakness and we have weakened even further. Toxic has ben partly responsible for managing a campaign of war and lies against many sections of our support. But at the end of the day we are all big boys and should have had the foresight to unite and fight back. Many chose not too, but chose to fight for their own wee 'corner' , ego's and agenda.

 

This latest group is already filled with arguement, distrust, ego's, self promotion and lack of genuine cohesion and strategy.

 

We never stood a chance. And still it goes on. Look what we have become ffs