Chairman’s Update To Supporters

[Zappa 0]

That's true the circumstances are completely different but there is a remarkable comparison in some aspects e.g. the Club imposing the Constitution of the RFB and the Club appointing a consultant to "advise" on the merger proposals.

 

I still don't see anything worthy of comparison though because even if the Club have hired an adviser for this proposed 'merger' purpose it's logical to assume that mainly he or she would essentially be acting as a mediator between the groups and that's something which is obviously needed, so what's the problem?

[Frankie 8,562]

Apparently there was a high level meeting at Ibrox towards the end of last week attended by representatives of at least two Rangers fans' web forums.

 

Can anyone say if Gersnet was invited or attended and if so what was on the agenda?

 

I wasn't aware of nor attended any meeting.

 

I'd also go one step further and say I'm not convinced any fan website should be a formal part of a board per se. Perhaps there could be some sort of online rep (or two) but it's unrealistic to expect every forum/site to have one - other than for more general meetings.

[Frankie 8,562]

Can you confirm that a former colleague of John Gilligan at Tennents, Malcolm Stenhouse, https://www.linkedin.com/in/malcolm-stenhouse-8338282 has been appointed by the Club as a consultant to advise on the merger, what part Ross Hendry is playing in these matters and who is remunerating them for their services?

 

Alan - rather than clumsily pointing fingers at people, please say what you have to say as the rest of us are clearly none the wiser over your allegations.

 

As far as I can see the club are working with experienced fans in their attempts to facilitate one single fan group. It makes sense for that to happen to ensure any new group can work efficiently with the club going forward - especially from the point of share purchases and/or any ring-fenced investment. Even better if there are one or two consultants providing their expertise at friendly rates.

 

Someone is clearly unhappy with this process which is absolutely fine if there is reasonable and direct criticism - not the nudge-nudge, wink-wink allegations you're making across the community. Why don't you name your source and we can judge their intentions as fairly as you want others in the process examined?

[Bluedell 5,625]

I would agree with you to the extent that I think that the members of each group should know who is representing them at these discussions and the individual groups should publicise that information.

 

I am a member of RF and I will be making my opinion known.

 

Why should they be publishing that fact? Do you really think a vast majority of RF members care which of the board is representing them at any given meeting?

 

I doubt it's a big secret and they will probably tell you if you ask but it's just meaningless information to most people.

 

BH, supporter representation is obviously something that you are obviously interested in but you're coming across as having some sort of agenda on this thread and not supportive of the overall concept of unity and not doing yourself any favours.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

i'm quite content to wait till the proposals are put before the supporters, as long as it a good deal for the support the Joint Group will get my financial input. If it looks like a stitch up and the supporters get no real return, then they wont be getting my money, simple as, I support this board, but i support the supporters more.

[buster. 5,193]

You didn't have a problem with the RFB Constitution when you invoked it to what you perceived to be your own personal advantage behind the backs of every other RFB Board Member did you?

 

Your vanity blinded you to the fact that you sealed your own fate with your own actions.

 

If you truly believe in a RFB how ever it's constructed then the best thing you could do is stay well away from it.

 

There does seem to be a pattern of sorts that follows certain people over a fairly long time period that begs various questions.

 

#DesperatelySeekingDivision

[pete 2,499]

Why should they be publishing that fact? Do you really think a vast majority of RF members care which of the board is representing them at any given meeting?

 

I doubt it's a big secret and they will probably tell you if you ask but it's just meaningless information to most people.

 

BH, supporter representation is obviously something that you are obviously interested in but you're coming across as having some sort of agenda on this thread and not supportive of the overall concept of unity and not doing yourself any favours.

 

Hell hath no fury like a Hemdani scorned.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You didn't have a problem with the RFB Constitution when you invoked it to what you perceived to be your own personal advantage behind the backs of every other RFB Board Member did you?

 

Your vanity blinded you to the fact that you sealed your own fate with your own actions.

 

If you truly believe in a RFB how ever it's constructed then the best thing you could do is stay well away from it.

 

I tried to invoke the Constitution unsuccessfully when the election for office bearers was first delayed then run contrary to the rules laid down and was removed from the board before the election was run leaving only one candidate for Secretary of the Board who was then returned unopposed.

 

Make that of it what you will.

Edited February 9, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I wasn't aware of nor attended any meeting.

 

I'd also go one step further and say I'm not convinced any fan website should be a formal part of a board per se. Perhaps there could be some sort of online rep (or two) but it's unrealistic to expect every forum/site to have one - other than for more general meetings.

 

I agree with that because most only represent a very small number of people.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Alan - rather than clumsily pointing fingers at people, please say what you have to say as the rest of us are clearly none the wiser over your allegations.

 

As far as I can see the club are working with experienced fans in their attempts to facilitate one single fan group. It makes sense for that to happen to ensure any new group can work efficiently with the club going forward - especially from the point of share purchases and/or any ring-fenced investment. Even better if there are one or two consultants providing their expertise at friendly rates.

 

Someone is clearly unhappy with this process which is absolutely fine if there is reasonable and direct criticism - not the nudge-nudge, wink-wink allegations you're making across the community. Why don't you name your source and we can judge their intentions as fairly as you want others in the process examined?

 

I'm sorry but I can't reveal my source at least not for the moment.

 

What I will say is that it is my understanding that Mr Stenhouse was "imposed" on the talks and I for one am concerned that at least two people, Alan Fraser and Malcolm Stenhouse, who are known associates/friends of Mr Gilligan are involved when they have no obvious locus.

 

If you want me to spell out my concern it is that the Club are seeking to mould the merged group to their liking.

 

As you rightly point out those (at least those known to me) involved in the talks are all experienced people and well capable of coming up with a working model without outside assistance.