D'Artagnan

Ill be honest with you bud - Id much rather the questions were asked directly and face to face. Id be disappointed if the meeting was derailed for any reason

Yes I fully appreciate that some of the criticism is justified - that doesnt bother me - its the malicious lies some are prepared to perpetuate. I will neither forget nor miss them in the future when I can one day write again free from the shackles of directorship responsibilities. Im not asking for your trust - just that evaluate our worth based on the nature of the questions tendered at this meeting.

I know I certainly will

I call it that RB because as you can see from this thread - we are not without our critics. I use the word "critics" in the widest possible sense as some of the comments, here and elsewhere, are well beyond criticism. However the crediblity of the organisation rests on its ability, within the confines it currently operates, to hold the board to account and next Monday's meeting will provide the platform for members and non members to assess how effectively we do that. The nature and tenacity of the questions tendered will in my opinion will go a long way to determinging the ultimate success or failure of the project. Its only my opinion of course - but I dont think Im far from wrong

Tenacious questioning ?

It may seem strange Smile - but when you are constantly attacked for everything you do - & one of those accusations pertains to "secretive meetings" you try and address such criticism by informing people about proposed meetings. Its becoming pretty clear however, that whatever we do - we will be slated.

Yes CB - I wouldnt call that an understatement. A critical meeting for us.

They will be - but I think the atmosphere has changed considerably since the AGM and as I said earlier I think they will be a lot more probing.

I sure get the point that people are critical often uneccessarily. My frustrations come from having to continually deny false allegations being tendered against the organisation - often on here and on twitter. Not critcism but downright lies perpetuated by Rangers fans against other Rangers fans.

LOL - no idea bud

You probably dont really know how pissed off I am bud. Disappointing as yesterday was on the park its not really what has my blood boiling at the min. Its seeing our club being run in a shambolic fashion, where there are people being paid for a job they are doing in a tawdry and carefree fashion not befitting of our club - leaving fans embarrassed and uninformed. The 3 examples I posted earlier are prime to my disaffection.

Yes. The questions tendred were members questions JBJ

I'll be totally honest with you bud - I dont think Club 1872 can afford not to ask, probe and illicit satisfactory answers to the pertinent questions. Call it a hunch but I think the questions will be a lot more probing than those tendered at AGM

An abomination of a resignation statement An official twitter account yesterday which clearly didnt know where and when we were playing A player taking the field wearing a shirt minus our badge. All in the last 10 days. Its often the small things which give an indication as to how the bigger things are working out.

Its not deflection KAI - how can I possibly say what questions will be asked when they havent even been tendered yet by members ?

The meeting will be next Monday. I would hope questions pertaining to the following matters will be tendered : Investment & clarification on previous statements re same. Communication (particularly with fans) Professionalism relating to image and corporate identity Accountability Management Vacancy & DOF role I would expect a full summary of both questions asked and responses given.

If you recall KAI some members on here actualy expressed delight that their questions had been asked on their behalf. We are a members led organisation and our actions as a board should reflect that without compromise. I would expect that the majority of the questions would come from members - thats the nature of the organisation. It will depend on the volume of questions tendered by members but I would imagine those which feature the most will receive the priority

They were members questions

So on one hand we get criticised for having secretive meetings and on the other we get critcised for announcing such meetings.

So we shouldnt tell members we have arranged a face to face meeting with SR to communicate their concerns ?

Well you have read my blogs for a no. of years - and Ive never shied away from criticising boards when I felt it justified. So do you think I would allow a board of which Im a member to go into a meeting and arse lick and not ask the pertinent questions ?

So we should release a statement which is actually a series of questions ?

I would disappointed if that was the case KK - we really need to get the permanent fixture in place for a variety of reasons :- (1) Assess the current squad and decide who can be jettisoned (2) Identify positions & players required for next season (3) Familiarise players with the system & style for next season

C'mon JB even you dont buy into that - train well & sell high ? Senderos Barton & Kranjcar ? These are signings which contradict MWs opening promises about only signing players which would add value to the club.

If you look at the full job description and duties it becomes a lot more evident why bud. http://www.s1jobs.com/job/marketing-pr/pr-corporate-communications/glasgow/647900064.html