BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) It says registered contributors actually as it has always done - the misinformation is from you, again. Fine, wrong word, which I'll correct. The point and you know full well the point is that the site indicates that 13,954 people are CONTRIBUTING, and it seems that is WRONG. "Regsitered contributors" implies that number are contributing; and please don't tell us it doesn't imply that because it obviously does have that implication. It's not often I agree with Zappa on here but he appears to be correct when he says the counter only ticks upwards. Why doesn't it say 9,000 or whatever number, perhaps you can answer that, Greg? Edited February 17, 2016 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I would like to pay tribute to Richard Scott who was unsuccessful in the election. Richard has played a leading role in establishing RF over the past year and I believe that his wise counsel and boundless enthusiasm for the project will be a loss to the Board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Fine, wrong word, which I'll correct. The point and you know full the point is that the site indicates that 13,954 people are CONTRIBUTING, and it seems that is WRONG. "Regsitered contributors" implies that number are contributing; and please don't tell us it doesn't imply that because it obviously does have that implication. It's not often I agree with Zappa on here but he appears to be correct when he says the counter only ticks upwards. Why doesn't it say 9,000 or whatever number, perhaps you can answer that, Greg? Where have you been for the last year and a half? The number has always only counted upward and was often spoken about online etc and from what I can see was never hidden (it was a quick fix implemented to help give an indication of membership interest that has remained in place longer than anticipated imo). Writing in caps and adding an "ing" to contributors doesn't change that you read it wrong, although I can see why you did. I can't answer why it doesn't say 9k or whatever as I have never been involved with the set up of the website - Personally I favour going with the numbers as is rather than the total number that has contributed as its more relevant to RF going forward. The website needs an overhaul anyways so maybe in the future we can have a number that represents current membership numbers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 How many pay into the RST scheme christine Bruce, it's nowhere near that as I'm sure you know. A lot of people bought Community Shares outright rather than paid them up. I know you thought I was having a dig at RF by saying that but I wasn't. It's inevitable that people will drop off in these things because a great number didn't join up because they had a great belief in fan ownership. It was because many of them felt helpless around January last year and wanted to help get rid of the corrupt board and help the club get back to where we belong. Hence the reason to look at a group that has other options rather than shareholding. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,266 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Bruce, it's nowhere near that as I'm sure you know. A lot of people bought Community Shares outright rather than paid them up. I know you thought I was having a dig at RF by saying that but I wasn't. It's inevitable that people will drop off in these things because a great number didn't join up because they had a great belief in fan ownership. It was because many of them felt helpless around January last year and wanted to help get rid of the corrupt board and help the club get back to where we belong. Hence the reason to look at a group that has other options rather than shareholding. It wasn't a dig , it was an honest question , it has always been a bug bear of mine the RF ticker , these numbers should be freely available , that's my opinion on both schemes 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Thanks and will you now confirm that RST have approximately 1,100 contributors to BR. This isn't a snipe at you BH.... But fuck me. Here we are talking about unity and I have witnessed 3 people in a short amount of time asking from comparisons between contributors af BR and RF. Will Rangers fans EVER see the big picture. So demoralizing !! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,257 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) I believe you have made your point numerous times on this web forum and RM where I will no doubt find it repeated yet again. I am told that your friends on FF have congratulated you on your efforts. I am sorely tempted to say more but I see no point in drawing this out. I stood on my CV which I did when elected to the RFB and steadfastly refused to list what I saw as my achievments at the RST, SDS and RF because I knew that if I did so it would only encourage more sniping. I was unsuccessful and I'm fine with that. Once again I congratulate those who have been elected and wish them well in the tasks ahead. The post you replied to was simply what I think regards the future and you are obviously free to ignore it, no problems. Re. FF I think you'll find that most people simply agreed with me. I agree regards there being little point in drawing this out further, good night. Edited February 17, 2016 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 It wasn't a dig , it was an honest question , it has always been a bug bear of mine the RF ticker , these numbers should be freely available , that's my opinion on both schemes To be fair in principle I agree - I know initially due to the ad hoc way RF was set up it required manual checks which is why the ticker was used iirc. With the size of the org now I think we could do a better job of sorting that kind of thing (I say that with no knowledge of what has been investigated or not by the current board) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) This isn't a snipe at you BH.... But fuck me. Here we are talking about unity and I have witnessed 3 people in a short amount of time asking from comparisons between contributors af BR and RF. Will Rangers fans EVER see the big picture. So demoralizing !! Whether you think so or not, Craig, it's a highly relevant question, for a whole host of reasons that I needn't spell out and my question is will Christine ever give us a straight answer of or just continue to obfuscate as she has been doing for the past two years. Edited February 17, 2016 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Bruce, it's nowhere near that as I'm sure you know. A lot of people bought Community Shares outright rather than paid them up. I know you thought I was having a dig at RF by saying that but I wasn't. It's inevitable that people will drop off in these things because a great number didn't join up because they had a great belief in fan ownership. It was because many of them felt helpless around January last year and wanted to help get rid of the corrupt board and help the club get back to where we belong. Hence the reason to look at a group that has other options rather than shareholding. I think we know that Christine and it applies equally to both schemes (now that we know that RF has 9,000 not 14,000 contributors). Then why don't you state the number who bought shares outright and the number of regular contributors, rather than continuing to obfuscate the issue? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.