LJ50

Forgive me, I looked at the latest messages. That’s a lengthy list.. let me try my best. 
Absolutely none. One of our number is the father of a Rangers employee, as everyone knows. That person is not involved of our group and has no role.  
The statements the requisitioners are releasing are being drafted by ourselves. Collectively. Everyone of us is inputting, reviewing, commenting and amending. We agree when we’re happy, as a collective, and then release.  
I reiterated our position in my earlier reply to you. As I said, there is nothing more to add. This isn’t about individuals, on either side. 
I can commit that for as long as we were on the board, Club 1872 would remain 100% independent. As we say in our roadmap, would look to repair the relationship with the Club but that relationship wouldn’t give the club any sort of ‘free pass’ if the members believe criticism is due. Talking to one fan media outlet today James referenced Tuesday’s ticketing “shambles” and I agree. Criticism of the problems and the clubs reaction is merited. But a good working relationship, that includes merited criticism, is important to achieving the aims of Club 1872 and representing its members  
By strengthening the articles to ensure members gain greater say in the running of Club 1872, we believe we would strengthen its independence. The current or future boards could propose amendments that weaken that; if I they did then, as a member, I would vote against. 
Honestly, because there is a hell of a lot to do to fix Club 1872 and that requires diverse skills, experiences and styles. And we don’t know if those two recently elected directors would choose to stay on if our resolution (as it was competently submitted) was passed. If they chose to do so then we’d look forward to working with them to achieve the goals we have set out ahead of elections before the end of February. Our resolution (again, properly) contained an amendment to the articles to allow the appointment of the Interim Directors, notwithstanding the maximum.

I’m not speaking for anyone else here, but I’ll repeat my position.
I do not want to be doing this. Three reasons:
1) by any measure, my job is fairly intense. My day usually starts at 0430 and I usually don’t finish work until not too long before I go to bed at 10pm. We’re a global business, so there is always someone, somewhere to speak to. 
2) I’m a private person and, frankly, I’m uncomfortable with my name being out there. Outside of the board of the business I work for, I have never sought a position on any sort of committee in my life.
3) Rangers is my passion; the team, the football. My lifelong love, and we nearly lost it. I worry enough about business at work, the last decade it’s often felt like an extension of work just keeping up with it all, talking about off the field matters. 
However… the recent elections were a bit of a ‘straw that broke the camels back’ for me. I saw Mark Dingwall being barred from standing and although I would categorically not have voted for him, I think members should decide the directors, not the current directors (albeit with the agreement of a third party). I saw Malcolm Murray standing and thought “is this really the best we can do? At least I hope the other two guys are good. I look forward to hearing what they have to say at the hustings”.
Then there were no hustings… just to be clear, there is a requirement (“will”, not “may”) in the articles that members be afforded the chance to hear from the candidates at hustings. No dialogue, no transparency, just an email with background and the vote opened. In all honestly it felt like either a stitch-up or a cock-up. Neither are good. 
Club 1872 is too important to fail. The fans holding 25%+1 ownership is the best guarantee of the Club’s security. The vehicle that gives us the power to avoid another Whyte, Green, Ashley or Easdale. And it’s failing. In fairly much every respect.
Basically, things reached a point where I couldn't keep asking "why aren't there people like me trying to something to put it back on track?" and then look myself in the mirror. I have  that visceral aversion to my name being in the public domain, I’m not enjoying being accused of self-interest, but I have decided that this is more important to me so I need to swallow that discomfort.
I can’t answer the question more openly and honestly than that. Take it at face value, or not. I can’t say any more, my conscious on my motives and our actions is entirely clear. 

I respectfully disagree. As a non-member of Club 1872, you have no right to expect a vote. That doesn't mean you shoudn't have an input and you aren't entitled to an opinion on any output.
As a member of the Rangers support and as a potential member of Club 1872, it should be engaging with you, we want to engage you. And the tens of thousands like you.

If you have been following the threads then you may have seen that we've addressed this, previously.
When we gathered in July, we felt that - as we had assembled in response to his request for people to step forward and as he had facilitated the drafting of the resolution - it would be inappropriate not to include Robert as one of the proposed Interim Directors. Given some of the unaddressed concerns about Club 1872 that led some of us to step forward we will not allow anyone the opportunity to falsely claim we would have any "shadow directors". We are committed to utter transparency.
He is the only one who would be non-voting and non-executive, and therefore it makes sense that he would act as chair for the board meetings, which is a facilitation role. If the resolution is successful, he will sign a legal undertaking to that effect.
Honestly, we've said what we have to say on it. The incumbent board are desperate to focus attention onto one individual, because making it personal diverts attention from what matters. We are focussed on substance: why Club 1872 is important, how it is failing and what we want to do to halt its decline and set it back on the right path.
More than happy to discuss those, or answer questions on them.
 

No secret, from the post we made on FF advising of our intent to submit the resolutions. 
 

I’m not speaking for anyone else here, but I’ll repeat my position.
I do not want to be doing this. Three reasons:
1) by any measure, my job is fairly intense. My day usually starts at 0430 and I usually don’t finish work until not too long before I go to bed at 10pm. We’re a global business, so there is always someone, somewhere to speak to. 
2) I’m a private person and, frankly, I’m uncomfortable with my name being out there. Outside of the board of the business I work for, I have never sought a position on any sort of committee in my life.
3) Rangers is my passion; the team, the football. My lifelong love, and we nearly lost it. I worry enough about business at work, the last decade it’s often felt like an extension of work just keeping up with it all, talking about off the field matters. 
However… the recent elections were a bit of a ‘straw that broke the camels back’ for me. I saw Mark Dingwall being barred from standing and although I would categorically not have voted for him, I think members should decide the directors, not the current directors (albeit with the agreement of a third party). I saw Malcolm Murray standing and thought “is this really the best we can do? At least I hope the other two guys are good. I look forward to hearing what they have to say at the hustings”.
Then there were no hustings… just to be clear, there is a requirement (“will”, not “may”) in the articles that members be afforded the chance to hear from the candidates at hustings. No dialogue, no transparency, just an email with background and the vote opened. In all honestly it felt like either a stitch-up or a cock-up. Neither are good. 
Club 1872 is too important to fail. The fans holding 25%+1 ownership is the best guarantee of the Club’s security. The vehicle that gives us the power to avoid another Whyte, Green, Ashley or Easdale. And it’s failing. In fairly much every respect.
Basically, things reached a point where I couldn't keep asking "why aren't there people like me trying to something to put it back on track?" and then look myself in the mirror. I have  that visceral aversion to my name being in the public domain, I’m not enjoying being accused of self-interest, but I have decided that this is more important to me so I need to swallow that discomfort.
I can’t answer the question more openly and honestly than that. Take it at face value, or not. I can’t say any more, my conscious on my motives and our actions is entirely clear. 

I’m not speaking for anyone else here, but I’ll repeat my position.
I do not want to be doing this. Three reasons:
1) by any measure, my job is fairly intense. My day usually starts at 0430 and I usually don’t finish work until not too long before I go to bed at 10pm. We’re a global business, so there is always someone, somewhere to speak to. 
2) I’m a private person and, frankly, I’m uncomfortable with my name being out there. Outside of the board of the business I work for, I have never sought a position on any sort of committee in my life.
3) Rangers is my passion; the team, the football. My lifelong love, and we nearly lost it. I worry enough about business at work, the last decade it’s often felt like an extension of work just keeping up with it all, talking about off the field matters. 
However… the recent elections were a bit of a ‘straw that broke the camels back’ for me. I saw Mark Dingwall being barred from standing and although I would categorically not have voted for him, I think members should decide the directors, not the current directors (albeit with the agreement of a third party). I saw Malcolm Murray standing and thought “is this really the best we can do? At least I hope the other two guys are good. I look forward to hearing what they have to say at the hustings”.
Then there were no hustings… just to be clear, there is a requirement (“will”, not “may”) in the articles that members be afforded the chance to hear from the candidates at hustings. No dialogue, no transparency, just an email with background and the vote opened. In all honestly it felt like either a stitch-up or a cock-up. Neither are good. 
Club 1872 is too important to fail. The fans holding 25%+1 ownership is the best guarantee of the Club’s security. The vehicle that gives us the power to avoid another Whyte, Green, Ashley or Easdale. And it’s failing. In fairly much every respect.
Basically, things reached a point where I couldn't keep asking "why aren't there people like me trying to something to put it back on track?" and then look myself in the mirror. I have  that visceral aversion to my name being in the public domain, I’m not enjoying being accused of self-interest, but I have decided that this is more important to me so I need to swallow that discomfort.
I can’t answer the question more openly and honestly than that. Take it at face value, or not. I can’t say any more, my conscious on my motives and our actions is entirely clear. 

I respectfully disagree. As a non-member of Club 1872, you have no right to expect a vote. That doesn't mean you shoudn't have an input and you aren't entitled to an opinion on any output.
As a member of the Rangers support and as a potential member of Club 1872, it should be engaging with you, we want to engage you. And the tens of thousands like you.

I’m not speaking for anyone else here, but I’ll repeat my position.
I do not want to be doing this. Three reasons:
1) by any measure, my job is fairly intense. My day usually starts at 0430 and I usually don’t finish work until not too long before I go to bed at 10pm. We’re a global business, so there is always someone, somewhere to speak to. 
2) I’m a private person and, frankly, I’m uncomfortable with my name being out there. Outside of the board of the business I work for, I have never sought a position on any sort of committee in my life.
3) Rangers is my passion; the team, the football. My lifelong love, and we nearly lost it. I worry enough about business at work, the last decade it’s often felt like an extension of work just keeping up with it all, talking about off the field matters. 
However… the recent elections were a bit of a ‘straw that broke the camels back’ for me. I saw Mark Dingwall being barred from standing and although I would categorically not have voted for him, I think members should decide the directors, not the current directors (albeit with the agreement of a third party). I saw Malcolm Murray standing and thought “is this really the best we can do? At least I hope the other two guys are good. I look forward to hearing what they have to say at the hustings”.
Then there were no hustings… just to be clear, there is a requirement (“will”, not “may”) in the articles that members be afforded the chance to hear from the candidates at hustings. No dialogue, no transparency, just an email with background and the vote opened. In all honestly it felt like either a stitch-up or a cock-up. Neither are good. 
Club 1872 is too important to fail. The fans holding 25%+1 ownership is the best guarantee of the Club’s security. The vehicle that gives us the power to avoid another Whyte, Green, Ashley or Easdale. And it’s failing. In fairly much every respect.
Basically, things reached a point where I couldn't keep asking "why aren't there people like me trying to something to put it back on track?" and then look myself in the mirror. I have  that visceral aversion to my name being in the public domain, I’m not enjoying being accused of self-interest, but I have decided that this is more important to me so I need to swallow that discomfort.
I can’t answer the question more openly and honestly than that. Take it at face value, or not. I can’t say any more, my conscious on my motives and our actions is entirely clear. 

Thanks for that. I had it in my mind there was a larger board at one time. 

If you have been following the threads then you may have seen that we've addressed this, previously.
When we gathered in July, we felt that - as we had assembled in response to his request for people to step forward and as he had facilitated the drafting of the resolution - it would be inappropriate not to include Robert as one of the proposed Interim Directors. Given some of the unaddressed concerns about Club 1872 that led some of us to step forward we will not allow anyone the opportunity to falsely claim we would have any "shadow directors". We are committed to utter transparency.
He is the only one who would be non-voting and non-executive, and therefore it makes sense that he would act as chair for the board meetings, which is a facilitation role. If the resolution is successful, he will sign a legal undertaking to that effect.
Honestly, we've said what we have to say on it. The incumbent board are desperate to focus attention onto one individual, because making it personal diverts attention from what matters. We are focussed on substance: why Club 1872 is important, how it is failing and what we want to do to halt its decline and set it back on the right path.
More than happy to discuss those, or answer questions on them.
 

No secret, from the post we made on FF advising of our intent to submit the resolutions. 
 

That’s simply not true I’m afraid. 
 
At its inception, Club 1872 owned more than 5% of RIFC by virtue of the merger of RF and the RST. It grew that shareholding in its early years to a high of approx. 10.7% following the purchase of the shares owned by MASH (Mike Ashley). 
 
Whilst the number of shares owned by Club 1872 has still grown in the intervening years, the number of shares in issue has grown faster. As a result, it’s share of ownership is, in fact, lower than it has ever been so it is further away from its objective than ever.
To be transparent, I am one of the requisitioners.
 

No secret, from the post we made on FF advising of our intent to submit the resolutions. 
 

Any chance of tapping me a few quid mate?

Decent of you to come on here and contribute, unlike some others who refuse to do so.

No secret, from the post we made on FF advising of our intent to submit the resolutions. 
 

Wasn't you mate, was to @The Dude