Jump to content

 

 

Rangers First board candidates


Recommended Posts

Fine.

 

Richard Gough is an employee of the Club and accepts hospitality from the Club in the form of a seat in the Directors Box.

 

I don't know if the Rev MacQuarrie earns any money from his various services for the Club but he accepts hospitality in the form of a seat in the Directors Box every week.

 

James Blair is the Rangers Company Secretary, so he is directly or indirectly remunerated for services to Rangers IFC.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

Yes - why not say so from the beginning?

 

Rangers First should be doing the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bowling club committee or a supporters club committee .......... full of sweetie wives, backstabbers, bitches and moaners (evidence on here already).

 

 

Then you have some decent folk wanting to actually do some good.

 

Facts of life I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine.

 

Richard Gough is an employee of the Club and accepts hospitality from the Club in the form of a seat in the Directors Box.

 

I don't know if the Rev MacQuarrie earns any money from his various services for the Club but he accepts hospitality in the form of a seat in the Directors Box every week.

 

James Blair is the Rangers Company Secretary, so he is directly or indirectly remunerated for services to Rangers IFC.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

Are you saying RG gets paid by the club or does he get expenses for what is an ambassadorial role ?

 

 

Is your strategy to eliminate opponents and not speak about your own unfortunate past when involved with fans groups etc ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying RG gets paid by the club or does he get expenses for what is an ambassadorial role ?

 

 

Is your strategy to eliminate opponents and not speak about your own unfortunate past when involved with fans groups etc ?

 

I don't know about Richard Gough's remuneration from the club, but personally I would not vote for anyone who does so. It is vital that RF remains totally independent of the club and holds the board accountable when required to do so. As it stands, there is a clear conflict of interest for a number of the nominees (as detailed above).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - why not say so from the beginning?

 

Rangers First should be doing the same.

 

For the simple reason that I didn't know for sure who the candidates were, I only had hearsay evidence; and remember that it was made clear that not all those who put themselves foreard would be on the final list. As it turns out it appears that all or at least 23 out of 24 names have been included.

 

However, I am happy to confirm that I raised all this with Supporters Direct and RF BEFORE the candidates were announced. RF have "noted" my comments.; SDS initially said they had "passed" all the candidates but then retracted and said that " It wasn't/isn't my place to adjudicate who should stand - simply be an independent person involved within the process. I will make my recommendations to the newly formed board as to what processes should be implemented. ".

 

I am not quote sure what the purpose would be of having an independent party review candidates applications/statements against a set criteria and then not have that party adjudicate on who can stand in the election and I have said so to SDS and will make the point to RF as well.

Edited by BrahimHemdani
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying RG gets paid by the club or does he get expenses for what is an ambassadorial role ?

 

I take the view that all candidates should have been asked to declare any income or hospitality they receive directly or indirectly from the Club and all candidates had an opportunity to do so on their statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt candidates should declare any possible conflict of interest - no matter how obvious it may seem on the face of it.

 

However, at the same time, I don't doubt Gough, MacQuarrie and Blair will act suitably no matter where they sit on a match-day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me then that despite the RF membership voting for the amalgamation discussions with club (and other bodies) we now have several candidates signing a pledge that would recommend such an amalgamation didn't happen.

 

It's certainly difficult to tell if these people want RF to remain independent of the club or would be happy with this one group remaining independent whilst falling on their own swords once the new group is formed.

 

RF needs to make this clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.