Rangers First board election: Gersnet's voting poll...

[Bluedell 5,625]

When the list came out I had a very quick scan read of the candidates profiles and statements and thought I would go back to it later in the process when more was known.

 

What has happened since has been very very sad indeed. Are some candidates there on behalf of the club? Are some there to push through a merger with RST/RSA? Are some there to push for not merging with RST/RSA?

 

Is anyone actually standing as a Rangers supporter who believes in the concept of RF, a share purchase vehicle to get as many shares into the hands of ordinary bears as possible, to protect our club from ever again being at the mercy of mercenary owners?

 

I am a member of both RST (have been since the start in 2003) and pay into the £11.25pm Share purchase plan, and RF on the £18.72 monthly contribution. It is my belief that I want as many shares in the hands of ordinary Bears as possible. I really dont want the RST to merge with RF as I think there is a place for both to do quite separate things on behalf of their members, and also there may be times when it is good to keep them apart. As both have several thousand paying members, I am sure there are a large number of bears that are members of both. Merging this will probably mean less money going into buying shares as what would be the point of me continuing to pay both £11.25 and £18.72 per month to the same organisation?

 

I am also struggling with casting a vote in favour of what I see as "Club men" like Gough and McQuarrie. On one hand it would give RF some clout to say they have these names on the board and would be easy to get media attention. However the whole point of RF was to stay away from the more confrontational and controversial issues of the day and just be a share purchase vehicle, so it shouldnt need to attract media attention other than to try to persuade more Bears to join with them and help build the fans shareholding. On the other hand the RST has always been more active, vocal, controversial, and unafraid to criticise the board of the day or the footballing authorities without the need to have "celebrity bears" to get their message out. Long may that continue, but the polarising nature of their work has meant that for some fans the RST will not be an option to contribute to, so are we going to lose those contributions to RF if a merger goes through.

 

I haven't got a clue who to vote for. I know some I wont vote for. That list has got gradually longer as the process has gone on. I will probably end up not voting at all. Its all very sad.

 

The election got sidelined into discussions on 3 divisive nominees and the issues that the rest were standing on (or not) got lost.

 

Many did not get to say whether they were for or against the merger or what their approach to dealing with conflicts of interest would be.

 

It's a shame that they didn't stand down when the very predictable storms arose and didn't put the organisations before themselves.

[Zappa 0]

I voted for myself

 

I'm sure a few others did too. In your case mate, if you take your own vote off you'd still be a leading candidate in this wee poll, so it's makes very little difference.

[Mountain Bear 0]

The election got sidelined into discussions on 3 divisive nominees and the issues that the rest were standing on (or not) got lost.

 

Many did not get to say whether they were for or against the merger or what their approach to dealing with conflicts of interest would be.

 

It's a shame that they didn't stand down when the very predictable storms arose and didn't put the organisations before themselves.

 

Very frustrated with the whole merger debate. There is nothing on the table yet so all we've had are entrenched pro / anti views, rather than a discussion of the merits or otherwise of a specific proposal.

 

That's simply distracted everyone from the attributes that each candidate would bring and their plans to improve what exist today - much of which is necessary (e.g. better communication), whatever the outcome of merger talks.

[buster. 5,191]

The election got sidelined into discussions on 3 divisive nominees and the issues that the rest were standing on (or not) got lost.

 

Many did not get to say whether they were for or against the merger or what their approach to dealing with conflicts of interest would be.

 

It's a shame that they didn't stand down when the very predictable storms arose and didn't put the organisations before themselves.

 

I think you'll probably find that many learn from this election and make more of a conscious effort to make more contact with members so as to become known and get accross their message. Social media being their friend.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Everyone is free to vote for who they want.

I never said otherwise.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I'd put money on certain candidates having voted for themselves and Alan would be one of them!

Oh without doubt but the fact there's more than one vote is surprising!

[aweebluesoandso 290]

https://twitter.com/ScottishFans

[craig 5,199]

Oh without doubt but the fact there's more than one vote is surprising!

 

BH rigged it so he could vote for himself as many as 6 times

 

Joking !!

[ranger_syntax 4,322]

Is anyone actually standing as a Rangers supporter who believes in the concept of RF, a share purchase vehicle to get as many shares into the hands of ordinary bears as possible, to protect our club from ever again being at the mercy of mercenary owners?

 

Rangers First does that?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

BH rigged it so he could vote for himself as many as 6 times

 

Joking !!

 

Actually I thought that you cast the other 5 votes for me