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

[buster. 5,185]

Yes one question not 42 pages of constant interrogation.You ask a question then receive an answer. If you don't like the answer then either have nothing to do with the fan board/board meetings or stand at next election. As I said was not meaning to point the finger solely at you, I apologise again if that is how you feel.

 

How many pages per question asked will be needed before the Fans Board can move on?

 

But given dates, your 'sermon' in #419 is very much at odds with your thoughts elsewhere. It included a reference to Gersnet being a "sane site" and an implied inferral that this status may be under threat. However yesterday, on another thread ('Our support and social media') you talked about what amounted to your 'controlled dual identity approach' for different messageboards (quote below). Your post was very interesting but I think most folk on Gersnet are simply being themselves and that is what helps sanity levels and honest debate,...... rather than "end goals".

 

Originally Posted by trublusince1982

..........."On RM i take a purposefully aggressive stance regardless of believing what I am debating because it is the best strategy for my end goal. My end goal or wants from Gersnet are different so i am more of a wall flower! Both of those will be evident in my respective posts but neither will on their own tell you anything about me........"

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?66789-Our-support-on-social-media/page2

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Volume of words, posts or pages have little relevance unless a satisfactory answer results and I think most would agree that to use this criteria would only encourage a lack of transparency in what is supposed to be the first step towards us achieving such, further up the chain. There are skilled indefatigable operators who can say a lot but don't really say anything or get to the nub of the matter regards the contentious.

 

No need to 'apoligise' again because it's not just me, but then you know that and there are many on this thread who aren't happy. For example, when an objective, knowledgeable and measured poster such as Bluedell really 'corners' BH on the fansgroups access to directors issue, there is no reply.

 

It's now apparent that this thread won't recieve the clarity many want to see although it's been an excellent discussion on the matter and would make good reading material for all members of the RFB prior to the next meeting.

Edited November 9, 2014 by buster.

[trublusince1982 243]

But given dates, your 'sermon' in #419 is very much at odds with your thoughts elsewhere. It included a reference to Gersnet being a "sane site" and an implied inferral that this status may be under threat. However yesterday, on another thread ('Our support and social media') you talked about what amounted to your 'controlled dual identity approach' for different messageboards (quote below). Your post was very interesting but I think most folk on Gersnet are simply being themselves and that is what helps sanity levels and honest debate,...... rather than "end goals".

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Volume of words, posts or pages have little relevance unless a satisfactory answer results and I think most would agree that to use this criteria would only encourage a lack of transparency in what is supposed to be the first step towards us achieving such, further up the chain. There are skilled indefatigable operators who can say a lot but don't really say anything or get to the nub of the matter regards the contentious.

 

No need to 'apoligise' again because it's not just me, but then you know that and there are many on this thread who aren't happy. For example, when an objective, knowledgeable and measured poster such as Bluedell really 'corners' BH on the fansgroups access to directors issue, there is no reply.

 

It's now apparent that this thread won't recieve the clarity many want to see although it's been an excellent discussion on the matter and would make good reading material for all members of the RFB prior to the next meeting.

 

Its what deems a satisfactory answer that i see as the problem. Satisfactory should be an honest and frank answer without and political speak or subterfuge. Not always necessarily what is wanted to be heard.

 

as for gersnet being the most sane I still believe that, but that doesn't mean that it will always be or is not devolving. Again doesn't mean it is worse than x y or z, its not.

 

the identity usage on RM is not because of factions or fans with differing opinions, that is to do with what i see as paid antagonists using social media to push agendas driven by their customers. That is something I have never seen on here. Although it happens often that posts are taken from the likes of here and used to antagonize or mock opinions of individuals in our support, before the merits of what was said can be discussed or spread to the wider support .That is part of the this camp versus that camp strategy. A truly cringe worthy thing to allow I am sure you agree, that serves no good purpose for Rangers or its fans.

 

 

what I was getting at in reference to the thread we are on is when and to whom do we pass responsibility? If we cant hand the baton to our own, who? We cant all continue to question every motive,every question from every speaker.Especially when the tone of the questions seem to go along the lines of "your trying to get one over on me" or doing something untoward. Its causing stagnation and paranoia amongst other things on top of all our shareholder related problems. I just feel like the support is heading down a very steep slope and gathering pace towards an eventual crash. If members of our own support cannot do as they are instructed to do and ask questions from the fans to the board in an official and elected capacity then we are ultimately saying nobody can speak without being cornered. That is not a healthy situation.Especially when our support is so varied, how do we appease everyone?Someone needs to suck it up! Vigilance should be utilized when looking outwith not within our own support surely?Don't get me wrong i am not naive and understand that will lead to abuse sometimes, but is that not the consequence of being? The one opinion we all share is that what is best for Rangers is what we want, i just worry that is being replaced by what I want for Rangers is right for Rangers. If the Rangers Fan Board is to evolve it must be allowed to learn from its own mistakes.

 

I find it evident that people care enough to have a go at fan reps for asking a question but do not have the care to ask the reasoning behind the question when faced with the source.

 

agree it's a good read and a definite homework assignment for those on the fans board! all I would add is maybe we should all do a bit of revision. Its early days here's hoping it becomes a vehicle the fans can get behind and the intervening time does not dissuade others from stepping forward in future.

 

anyway thats my two pence worth thanks for the interesting points it makes a change and reminds me of the old days before admin.

[Frankie 8,562]

trublu:

 

I raised the point about the buses leaving from Ibrox being a strange/impractical idea but BH didn't expand upon how he/you felt it was a suggestion worth exploring.

 

I'd certainly appreciate a more in-depth rationale for why you wanted to discuss this as the minutes certainly don't make this clear.

[Frankie 8,562]

For everyone else:

 

I think we're in danger of going round in circles when it comes to the position of BH on some issues. He's made his point, many of us disagree and we'll just have to accept that for the moment.

 

Perhaps after the next meeting, we'll have some more information on the variety of issues discussed in this thread. I'm sure any RFB member viewing it will agree that some more in-depth debate and reporting is required to avoid the same eventual tedium early next month.

[Frankie 8,562]

T4C:

 

Here is the membership scheme thread BH talks about from August last year:

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?58412-Proposal-for-a-membership-scheme

[buster. 5,185]

trusblu82

 

Whether a messageboard is perceived as sane or not is for those observing to decide, I think it more important that those who contribute are honest and without hidden agendas or "end goals".

 

Everyone is free to their opinion regards the RFB and it's short record. What the last few years should have taught us, is to deal with what is in front of us and that an idealist 'benefit of the doubt' is off limits. Trust can only be born of transparency and actions.

 

 

We currently have an agreement within the RFansB to take to the directors a proposal, that is perverse and obviously in the interests of the club executive, as it seeks to marginalise groups who have been vocal in their (merited) criticism of the RIFC/TRFC board(s) and calls for transparency.

 

Fansgroups shouldn't be restricted access, no matter what side of any divide they be upon.

A fans board should represent fans and not seek from the outset to base decisions on politics / club executive interests.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Thank's Frankie !!

Edited November 10, 2014 by buster.

[buster. 5,185]

For everyone else:

 

I think we're in danger of going round in circles when it comes to the position of BH on some issues. He's made his point, many of us disagree and we'll just have to accept that for the moment.

 

Perhaps after the next meeting, we'll have some more information on the variety of issues discussed in this thread. I'm sure any RFB member viewing it will agree that some more in-depth debate and reporting is required to avoid the same eventual tedium early next month.

 

I'll put up a new thread (have one in mind) after we can all have a wee rest from this one.

[BEARGER 1,830]

I'll ask again. What were the voting figures in the election of the RFB? What % of those entitled to vote actually did? Those who were "elected" told what their vote was?

[Frankie 8,562]

I'll ask again. What were the voting figures in the election of the RFB? What % of those entitled to vote actually did? Those who were "elected" told what their vote was?

 

I think I've mentioned this a few times.

 

FS says 683 people voted in the Disabled category. For argument's sake if we generously say double that figure voted in the others that gives us 1400 people. Also for the sake of debate, if we accept there are 23,000 RFB members (season ticket holders and stand-alone scheme members without tickets) then that means 1400 out of 23000 voted which is a 6% turnout.

 

Obviously these numbers are unsubstantiated so we can only make very general assumptions from them. For example, there may be 23,000 scheme members but I don't know how these people were contacted vis-a-vis the voting procedures open to them. I don't know if people could vote by email, mail or telephone.

 

Consequently, perhaps the RFB can produce a report on the election results if people think it necessary.

[buster. 5,185]

I think I've mentioned this a few times.

 

FS says 683 people voted in the Disabled category. For argument's sake if we generously say double that figure voted in the others that gives us 1400 people. Also for the sake of debate, if we accept there are 23,000 RFB members (season ticket holders and stand-alone scheme members without tickets) then that means 1400 out of 23000 voted which is a 6% turnout.

 

Obviously these numbers are unsubstantiated so we can only make very general assumptions from them. For example, there may be 23,000 scheme members but I don't know how these people were contacted vis-a-vis the voting procedures open to them. I don't know if people could vote by email, mail or telephone.

 

Consequently, perhaps the RFB can produce a report on the election results if people think it necessary.

 

After a quick glance at the thread you posted from August 2013 and looking at these numbers, the over-riding problem is obvious, was indeed declared back in the old thread and agreed upon by BH.

 

That you need to be able to trust the club's board of directors and have a reasonable degree of transparency.