gennaro 0 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I don't know who changed the heading but the email that was sent out from RM had "The Louden Votes on RF" which is different from telling people how they should vote - I also question who chose to change it and for what purpose. The email you quoted was received from a followfollow hotmail account and was received after the original from the Louden Tavern. It is only the former which has the "Advice from..." subject header. I doubt there was any malicious intent in the change but folk see what they want to see 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Just noticed this. Candidate No. 22 Darren Thomson "I Would like to stand as I was medically discharged from the armed forced with PTSD and now have plenty of time in my hands to focus on what ever the RST need." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) Did the first part of the chap's statement not make you ponder whether a quiet email might have been better than a 24pt font quote? Edited February 15, 2016 by andy steel 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 0 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Very good Blog on this Subject: The following is the work of @iang_1972 where he wants to ask some questions about what is going on! RangersFirst Board member voting. As you know RangersFirst was set up for fans by fans as a means to facilitate Fan ownership in Rangers Football club. Independent of who controls the boardroom at any point in time. To stand by and protect the club when an owner who does not have the best interest of the club at heart arrives and to NEVER AGAIN go through what Rangers has since 2011. I was there from the beginning and championed RangersFirst whenever and wherever I could in my small way. I have bought in to the independence of RangersFirst from whoever owns the club until we have enough of a shareholding to BE the owners. Because of this there will always be push back of one sort or another from within the boardroom, however well intentioned it seems. In my opinion RangersFirst should ALWAYS be independent. On the day voting opened I started to see comments on social media about things not being all right within RangersFirst so I tried to find out what was going on. Keeping the information private until after the voting has finished is not an option. What I heard initially was surrounding the “Merger” talks and that there was a plan to divert 47.5% of RangersFirst revenue directly to the club, now I have heard and repeatedly been told about the “Asset Lock” but what if that asset is IP and offers no return to RangersFirst members? This is an important point because it instantly dilutes the ability of RF to buy shares and increase their percentage in the club or to take part in a rights issue to protect their investment from being diluted. RangersFirsts aim at the beginning was to achieve 5% shareholding in the PLC and an ideal end point was 25% + 1 Share. We have not even reached 5% yet so in my opinion any talk of a merger that will dilute our ability to achieve this or divert us away from it should be frowned upon if not out right rejected. At least until we have met our core aim. * Since drafting this I read an article regarding RangersFirst and the votes where a question was posed that I think is pertinent to address here. “What are you first and foremost a supporter of the club or a supporter of said group?” For me this is the wrong question, we are being asked to back a proposal for THIS and ALL future boards and owners of the Club. It is easy to get confused when discussing Rangers, especially when being a fan was such a big part of the conversation while resting control of the boardroom. We should always remember the distinction between Club and its owner, RangerFirst was created to protect the Club not whoever owns it! This proposed merger is being promoted and facilitated by the current board, I support a football club not a boardroom. As discussions have progressed the proposed merger has become a major talking point of members and non-members with candidates opinions on any merger being a hot topic. Another tweet went out about a split within RangersFirst and about a company being set up by those involved. There is an alleged concern, particularly given the merger talks, that there is/was a conflict of interest between a RangersFirst board member who was assisting the board at Ibrox. A couple of members of the “Working Parties” involved felt strongly enough about this that they went as far as creating a company in case their worst fears came about. Since then the two “Working Party” members have decided to stand for the board and hope to fight from within to retain RangersFirst as an independent group/Organisation. They feel that they have legitimate reasons to be concern and as two fans who have been involved since the very first meeting to discuss RF, and even before. I have no reason to think that they do not have the best interest of the club, RangersFirst and its member at heart. I ask the RangersFirst members to be aware that this is YOUR vote and if you have questions please ask RangersFirst or the candidates themselves. Do not listen to those who have consistently opposed the creation and existence of RangersFirst. Before you vote for a new board please consider why you joined RangersFirst and ask the question of those you think would do best, Do you recognise the need for RangersFirst to be completely independent of the board for it to act in the best interest of the club and fans. Ian I sought approval from those I discussed this with prior to writing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I suppose the question is who did he discuss it with? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,192 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I suppose the question is who did he discuss it with? Perhaps those who championed 'transparency' in their profile. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 plgsarmy, are you in RF as well as the RST? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 0 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Perhaps those who championed 'transparency' in their profile. Are you a member of RF ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 plgsarmy, are you in RF as well as the RST? No I'm not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) No I'm not. 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. Edited February 15, 2016 by andy steel 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.