Rangers fans' group in crisis as three chiefs quit in row over management

[BEARGER 1,830]

The vast majority had no idea what they were actually voting for , the way the question was structured made sure of that , go back and look at how it was phrased

 

So the vast majority of us who voted for merger are thick! Thanks for that.

[buster. 5,262]

The vast majority had no idea what they were actually voting for , the way the question was structured made sure of that , go back and look at how it was phrased

 

Can you c&p the question you refer to please.

[buster. 5,262]

Both groups members voted overwhelmingly in favour of merger. Why not let the merged group get on with getting things up and running? As long as there is no financial mismanagement going on( no evidence of this) then I'm happy to let those remains get on with the job.

As I've said before there will always be those who just snipe and smear from the sidelines, but they are a small minority. One guy in particular has fought a daily battle on line to stop this being a success, this is a guy who stood for RF board but was not elected.

 

Bare with me, but would that happen to be either of the two who set up an alternative corporate vehicle prior to the election ?

[rbr 1,266]

So the vast majority of us who voted for merger are thick! Thanks for that.

 

 

That's not what I said , don't twist things mate , the question was put in such a way that it was guaranteed to go through .

 

Also how could you know what you were voting for when those involved had acknowledged that the actual details hadn't been decided yet , they only had a broad agreement in place to merge the two organisations , that's exactly the point I made on here and also on rangers media , a thread which is still going

[rbr 1,266]

Can you c&p the question you refer to please.

 

I don't have it , it's not on either site any more and I don't have the email sent , but it was phrased along the lines of " do you agree to unify the Rangers support " that was the first question , the second was very similar

[BEARGER 1,830]

Bare with me, but would that happen to be either of the two who set up an alternative corporate vehicle prior to the election ?

 

Don't think so. His name is Chris Smith goes by Obanlad on Twitter.

[buster. 5,262]

I don't have it , it's not on either site any more and I don't have the email sent , but it was phrased along the lines of " do you agree to unify the Rangers support " that was the first question , the second was very similar

 

Let's say it was........ " do you agree to unify the Rangers support ?"

 

I'd imagine that it was a provisional question pending more detail ??

 

What would you suggest that they asked ?

[buster. 5,262]

Don't think so. His name is Chris Smith goes by Obanlad on Twitter.

 

Thank's !

 

Just looked back, you're right.

[rbr 1,266]

Sorry Buster I'm on my phone so not the greatest for replying get, you somewhat answered my point,there were no more details , there still aren't, they have an unelected working group who are making decisions with no authority, can you name them out of interest

 

 

[buster. 5,262]

Sorry Buster I'm on my phone so not the greatest for replying get, you somewhat answered my point,there were no more details , there still aren't, they have an unelected working group who are making decisions with no authority, can you name them out of interest

 

You seem to have been able to make your points thusfar rbr, so no alternative suggestions then.

 

I might well be wrong but IIRC there were two different votes asking members questions.

The second lot following on from the first.

The second lot contained 'pending detail' with the questions.

correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I don't know enough about it to go into too much detail (including names) other than recalling the COI issue that was brought up by some.

 

But I don't understand what you are getting at wrt the questions being some devious ploy.