Club 1872 meeting with Dave King

[Gaffer 1,665]

I appreciate the responses and the sentiment behind this, but how does one person represent the fans?

 

aweebluesoandso had one of the only topics where I think we agree, namely the treatment of our club and fans.  I get this and can understand why fan representation is important here, but does that require a seat on the board?  Couldn't Club 1872 have made the point without a seat in the board?  I seem to recall it did.

 

ranger_syntax said that they represent thousands of donors.  I get that, but to do what?  I'm happy for someone to represent me in the acquisition of shares in the club, but I don't want anyone using my 'name' to advance their opinion on who should be manager, or whether Celtic fans should or shouldn't get a full allocation at Ibrox, or whether safe standing is more important than improving the quality of the food a team Ibrox, or whether the club should be selective in its share issues.  No one asked me my opinion (unless I missed that, which is possible) so how can I be represented?  And if there are 10 different opinions, how do we vote for which opinion is most representative?  That's the part I don't understand.

 

I completely understand D'Artagnan's point about safeguarding the club and that's why I pay my money.  However, to what extent do we really safeguard the club if we can't maintain our shareholding?  If so many of us are really that interested (or concerned now) about safeguarding the club, why do we find it so hard to find contributors.  Surely the best way to safeguard it is to have enough of a shareholding to require that major financial decisions are made public.  As far as I see it, the majority of the other decisions will be made confidentially (at least I'd hope they are to ensure competitive advantage), and therefore we won't know how our representative is performing or voting anyway.

[D'Artagnan 173]

7 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I appreciate the responses and the sentiment behind this, but how does one person represent the fans?

 

aweebluesoandso had one of the only topics where I think we agree, namely the treatment of our club and fans.  I get this and can understand why fan representation is important here, but does that require a seat on the board?  Couldn't Club 1872 have made the point without a seat in the board?  I seem to recall it did.

 

ranger_syntax said that they represent thousands of donors.  I get that, but to do what?  I'm happy for someone to represent me in the acquisition of shares in the club, but I don't want anyone using my 'name' to advance their opinion on who should be manager, or whether Celtic fans should or shouldn't get a full allocation at Ibrox, or whether safe standing is more important than improving the quality of the food a team Ibrox, or whether the club should be selective in its share issues.  No one asked me my opinion (unless I missed that, which is possible) so how can I be represented?  And if there are 10 different opinions, how do we vote for which opinion is most representative?  That's the part I don't understand.

 

I completely understand D'Artagnan's point about safeguarding the club and that's why I pay my money.  However, to what extent do we really safeguard the club if we can't maintain our shareholding?  If so many of us are really that interested (or concerned now) about safeguarding the club, why do we find it so hard to find contributors.  Surely the best way to safeguard it is to have enough of a shareholding to require that major financial decisions are made public.  As far as I see it, the majority of the other decisions will be made confidentially (at least I'd hope they are to ensure competitive advantage), and therefore we won't know how our representative is performing or voting anyway.

They dont represent the fans - they represent their members (almost all of whom will be fans nonetheless)

Edited March 23, 2018 by D'Artagnan

[Bluedell 5,624]

1 hour ago, D'Artagnan said:

"Our Vision

Club 1872 seeks to give our members a meaningful say in Rangers Football Club by increasing their collective shareholding. 

The organisation is a responsible, independent and democratic representation of our members and will defend and protect the reputation, history, assets and existence of Rangers Football Club. In the spirit of the Founding Fathers, Club 1872 will pursue this undertaking above all else."

So basically the some of aims of the Trust were binned? 

 

When was that paragraph produced? 

[D'Artagnan 173]

9 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

So basically the some of aims of the Trust were binned? 

 

When was that paragraph produced? 

I have no idea - I was going by the original document which was sent as a proposal

[Bluedell 5,624]

2 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

I have no idea - I was going by the original document which was sent as a proposal

Thanks, D'Art. I was trying to find that myself but the link is now down.

[ranger_syntax 4,321]

1 hour ago, Gaffer said:

ranger_syntax said that they represent thousands of donors.  I get that, but to do what?  I'm happy for someone to represent me in the acquisition of shares in the club, but I don't want anyone using my 'name' to advance their opinion on who should be manager, or whether Celtic fans should or shouldn't get a full allocation at Ibrox, or whether safe standing is more important than improving the quality of the food a team Ibrox, or whether the club should be selective in its share issues.  No one asked me my opinion (unless I missed that, which is possible) so how can I be represented?  And if there are 10 different opinions, how do we vote for which opinion is most representative?  That's the part I don't understand.

The Club1872 board is elected by a democratic process, no?

 

You can't have missed that when you decided to donate.

 

Anyway, you are electing a representative.  That is to say a person to make decisions on behalf of the donors.  Representative democracy should be familiar to all in the United Kingdom.

[DevilBlue WeeThe 44]

If only we were half as good at tackling our enemies as we are at arguing amongst ourselves we would be unbeatable.

[Gonzo79 15,293]

7 minutes ago, DevilBlue WeeThe said:

If only we were half as good at tackling our enemies as we are at arguing amongst ourselves we would be unbeatable.

Something I find myself moaning about constantly.  We love an argument amongst ourselves - if it isn't about the catering at Ibrox or our latest away top, it's whether we prefer Mike Ashley or Dave King.  

 

We make it easy for those who hate us.

[forlanssister 3,114]

4 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

The reward is the safe standing section.

 

Do you put money into Club1872?

Club 1872 are running with the safe standing thing for the wrong reason they're doing it because they think it's popular not because it's the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to ensure that the disabled facilities are brought up to date and the attitude of the Club towards its disabled fans is brought out of the Victorian era and into the 21st century.

 

The lack of a safe standing section will have no effect on our various licences needed to operate the stadium and play in European competitions but one day our inadequate disabled facilities will. Club 1872 like the Club itself pay lip service to the issues facing disabled fans and the consequences of having such a stance.

[Gaffer 1,665]

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

The Club1872 board is elected by a democratic process, no?

 

You can't have missed that when you decided to donate.

 

Anyway, you are electing a representative.  That is to say a person to make decisions on behalf of the donors.  Representative democracy should be familiar to all in the United Kingdom.

I'm obviously not being very clear here.  I know the board members are elected, but what do they stand for?  What are their priorities?  And how is the agenda of the rep decided?  I'm looking for a practical answer here.  I don't understand why some of the responses to this have been either pedantic or stating the bleeding obvious.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Gaffer