Rangers First board candidates

[andy steel 0]

I think that is a largely unfair statement regarding Chris Graham. He came on here to highlight an inaccuracy posted here by BH. His "fascinating" post was in reference to BH posting a load of rules and guidance which seemed to have little relevance.

 

Surely when someone is posting misinformation about someone else in the online fraternity that person has the right to rebut ? I could be wrong, but I thought that BH first posted the misinformation about Chris attending Board meetings (again, I am going from my limited memory) on this very thread - I would contend Chris Graham therefore had a right to comment in this very same thread.

 

I would argue that BH, as a candidate for the RF Board... shows his candidacy in a very poor light with the stream of allegations he has been making about other candidates - but that very well may be another topic for another day.

 

Of course people have the right to reply. I'm arguing that as visible figures in another body they might want to be more circumspect when posting in the RF election thread - keep it to the facts and dismiss whatever nonsense has been said about them, and if possible avoid coming across badly. But, as I say, it's a free country!

[craig 5,199]

Of course people have the right to reply. I'm arguing that as visible figures in another body they might want to be more circumspect when posting in the RF election thread - keep it to the facts and dismiss whatever nonsense has been said about them, and if possible avoid coming across badly. But, as I say, it's a free country!

 

I didn't think Chris Graham made mention of anything about the RF election but simply rebutted BH's incorrect assertion about Chris attending Board meetings.

 

If I am wrong then I will gladly stand corrected.

[andy steel 0]

I think Buster put it better than I could:

 

I'm concerned about how the individuals involved go about saying and doing things because this has been part of a major problem with the fanbase as a whole for too long.

[North Rd 0]

I am a member of RF. So if I ask the same questions as buster then you will answer them ?

 

To be honest, as an RF member who was fully supportive of exploring a merger, I find it a bit disconcerting when a number of the RF candidates are running on a platform of independence. Further, I find it disconcerting that two Board members created an organization on the QT which would be put into activity upon the RF membership voting for a merger.

 

In essence, two of the candidates are saying that no matter what the RF members think is wise (with 97%+ it would suggest that the membership would like to explore the merger) these Board members seem to be saying "Fine, we will just resign and start something else if things don't go our way".

 

Not the best of platforms IMHO.

 

I don't disagree on your main thrust here, being a member of RF allows for us to question candidates, I also believe that non members can have an opinion, what I don't get is non members castigating some candidates as an agenda to sway others votes when as the saying goes "Those is glass houses"

[andy steel 0]

I didn't think Chris Graham made mention of anything about the RF election but simply rebutted BH's incorrect assertion about Chris attending Board meetings.

 

If I am wrong then I will gladly stand corrected.

 

Iirc you are quite right. My gripe is that it's in the RF election thread, and his being a big wheel in the RST makes that awkward. But it's only a small matter & I don't think anyone much other than myself will give two hoots.

[Fury 0]

I think that is a largely unfair statement regarding Chris Graham. He came on here to highlight an inaccuracy posted here by BH. His "fascinating" post was in reference to BH posting a load of rules and guidance which seemed to have little relevance.

 

Surely when someone is posting misinformation about someone else in the online fraternity that person has the right to rebut ? I could be wrong, but I thought that BH first posted the misinformation about Chris attending Board meetings (again, I am going from my limited memory) on this very thread - I would contend Chris Graham therefore had a right to comment in this very same thread.

 

I would argue that BH, as a candidate for the RF Board... shows his candidacy in a very poor light with the stream of allegations he has been making about other candidates - but that very well may be another topic for another day.

 

Thank you Craig. I've steadfastly refused to comment on the RF elections except for some of the worst examples of people (including some candidates) spreading misinformation. Mr Harris was one obvious example. Buster has addressed some of the others very comprehensively. What people seem to be forgetting is that the conduct of this election potentially reflects not only on RF but on the whole push for fan ownership. It shouldn't, but given the nature of social media it probably will.

 

My concern is not who ends up on the board of RF - as a non member that is none of my business - it is how that effects the future of fan ownership and representation as a whole. For some reason, at least on social media, this appears to have turned into a competition to see who can make up the most outlandish conspiracy theory about the work that has been ongoing with all the fan groups. If RF members are concerned about what direction that is taking then why not just ask the RF board members who have been involved in discussions along every single step of the way? That would seem preferable to relying on blogs and social media comment full of chinese whispers and, at best half truths.

 

That said, the process will continue regardless, and hopefully when the proposal comes out it will be received positively by the tens of thousands of fans who are its audience. If a few people who like to shout very loudly on social media are a bit put out then that's a price I suppose we'll all just have to pay.

[craig 5,199]

Iirc you are quite right. My gripe is that it's in the RF election thread, and his being a big wheel in the RST makes that awkward. But it's only a small matter & I don't think anyone much other than myself will give two hoots.

 

Lol. Aye, you and me are probably the only two using our handbags andy

[Zappa 0]

Ah..there goes my question about conflicts of interest!

 

In that case, though, I don't think it's good form for RST associated people/members to be weighing in on a RF election thread.

 

In fairness Andy, plgsarmy knows most of the movers & shakers, has maybe been communicating with some RF people (re - the merger proposals) and also might have an insight on certain matters which none of us do, so I'm not sure why she should stay away from commenting on this type of thread. It's an open forum, so folk are entitled to comment no matter whether any of us agree with them or not.

[andy steel 0]

For goodness sake - must be a quiet night!

 

Zappa, you genuinely can't see any reason, given the history of Rangers fans' groups, why RST people shouldn't comment on the RF Elections thread? Chris G has just set out his own position of steadfastly refusing to comment on it - I think that's the best policy.

[buster. 5,192]

@Buster, do u have same concerns for anyone on the RST Board?

 

I'm an opinionated barsteward and if there was to be an RST board election and I had similar concerns or saw people with a secret agenda I'd say. The only person I know of regards 'visual/in the limelight' is Chris Graham, who I've commented about on FF and it wasn't all complimentary....but we get away from the real issues Mr North.

 

#Objective