Club1872, King and Rangers board

[buster. 5,257]

1 hour ago, the gunslinger said:

King did great things for us but now he is just a pain in the arse trying to recoup his money. 

 

 

King lost more than a decent wedge in 2012.

We'll always be thankful for what he did in 2014/15.

He's entitled to try and sell his shares for whatever reason.

 

 

However, you'd hope he wouldn't sell them to dubious parties with less than good intentions towards the club and you'd expect him to respect a fans shareholding group, rather than capture it for his own ends.

 

It seems as the initial intention was to sell the shares to C1872 but retain the influence.

 

Like several other times (Rangers v S.D.I, Dave King v SA Taxman), he has misjudged and is on plan B o r C.

[forlanssister 3,114]

You'd think they'd address the boardroom concerns closer to home first rather than lecture others.

 

Perhaps they view their members to be an irrelevant inconvenience in govetnance matters.

 

[CammyF 8,385]

Take away the fact that its Club1872, but I am open and supportive of any supports body (RSA as an example) inviting Rangers board members to speak to / enter discussions with fans. 

[Bill 13,717]

21 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Take away the fact that its Club1872, but I am open and supportive of any supports body (RSA as an example) inviting Rangers board members to speak to / enter discussions with fans. 

It might help if they didn't make clear in advance of any discussion their animosity and negative intent towards the board. Club1872 doesn't want a discussion, it wants a crucifixion. I hope there's no remaining belief that Club1872 has the best interests of Rangers at heart. That it continues to accept fans' money on such obviously false pretences is unforgivable.

[CammyF 8,385]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

It might help if they didn't make clear in advance of any discussion their animosity and negative intent towards the board. Club1872 doesn't want a discussion, it wants a crucifixion. I hope there's no remaining belief that Club1872 has the best interests of Rangers at heart. That it continues to accept fans' money on such obviously false pretences is unforgivable.

The RSA have been critical of the board publicly in recent times, should that stop them attempting to get their members (and their concerns) given, in person to members of the Rangers board? 

[stewarty 2,060]

1 minute ago, CammyF said:

The RSA have been critical of the board publicly in recent times, should that stop them attempting to get their members (and their concerns) given, in person to members of the Rangers board? 

I would say that constructive criticism is one thing. But clearly setting out your stall as spoiling for a fight and hiring a guy like Craig Houston, who I admired for his combative style in our dark days, is a signal of intent. 
 

no personal beef with Craig but some of his stuff in recent times has been difficult to comprehend. Like one of those guys that criticises everything just to be able to say ‘I told you so’ when he’s eventually proved right on something.  
 

 

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, CammyF said:

The RSA have been critical of the board publicly in recent times, should that stop them attempting to get their members (and their concerns) given, in person to members of the Rangers board? 

No, not at all, I'm all for direct dialogue but recent RSA criticism has hardly been comparable to the long campaign pursued by Club1872 on behalf of a former chairman. There's criticism and there's criticism, if you're going to pursue dialogue then there should at least be some expectation of a sensible exchange of views.

[buster. 5,257]

Criticism from C1872 when they are, in good part, having their strings pulled by DK loses legitimacy.

[CammyF 8,385]

3 hours ago, buster. said:

Criticism from C1872 when they are, in good part, having their strings pulled by DK loses legitimacy.

Does it tho? As far as I can see, they are the only "group" who are trying to get current board members to engage with their members (for the record, I am not a member of Club1872).

 

In this case we can question their "motives" but not their intentions. The board tried to "engage" with fans via a series of car-crash interviews with fan-media and actually pulled follow-up interviews due to the negative response to the initial interviews. 

 

The AGMs are mostly "stage-managed" and very few hard-hitting questions are allowed. So, how else do fans get to engage with the club?

 

I'd hope the RSA would follow the Club1872 example and invite the board to meet / face their members and respond to our legitimate concerns. 

 

[buster. 5,257]

6 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Does it tho? As far as I can see, they are the only "group" who are trying to get current board members to engage with their members (for the record, I am not a member of Club1872).

 

In this case we can question their "motives" but not their intentions. The board tried to "engage" with fans via a series of car-crash interviews with fan-media and actually pulled follow-up interviews due to the negative response to the initial interviews. 

 

The AGMs are mostly "stage-managed" and very few hard-hitting questions are allowed. So, how else do fans get to engage with the club?

 

I'd hope the RSA would follow the Club1872 example and invite the board to meet / face their members and respond to our legitimate concerns. 

 

Yes, it does is the simple answer.

 

Their members are getting a raw deal from the decisions of the executive.

 

The platform that could have been used to put forward legitimate questions of the RIFC board has effectively been rendered not fit for purpose. 

 

To put it bluntly, King is playing a cnuts game.