What say the RST and pals?

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Any particular type of biscuit you have in mind?

Low calorie ones.

[Taipan 580]

Thanks for posting.

Can I ask if you were, as a board member, consulted about the press release which was issued, simultaneously, with the UB and assembly statements.

As to elections I understand the process the problem is, of course, that with so many board members and so few positions up for renewal that anyone trying to create a truly representative body cannot achieve their aim without seeking the consent of those who are seemingly happy with the status quo.

I can't really comment on individual board matters on a public forum I'm afraid albeit I'm happy to respond to any member seeking information on board policies. These do need to be addressed through the correct membership channels though.

I think you might find there are quite a few board members seeking re-election, as I said I can post up once I have the numbers.

[Taipan 580]

Appreciate your prompt reply. Would I be right I thinking that records will be kept (Minutes, etc) from previous years and that AGM records would be kept safely as are most records/minutes of similar organisations?

The Board members names would be listed from day-1. I'm sure the present Secretary would have access to those minutes.

Ask he/she to provide you (as a favour) with the names of the Board members and, unless it's covered by the OSA you could list them here at a future date (or PM me said list).

Yours,

Curious,

BaconLand

Yes the taking of minutes has certainly been part of any meeting I've attended this past year. There will be historic paperwork and if you are a member you are entitled to this information. if you're not a member you can join and request the information from the members' secretary.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Moreover, many people (such as myself) have questioned the decision to 'promote' Walter and have asked if he has the necessary qualities for such a role.

He must have appreciated that fair criticism as he still did a deal with my site to write our book's foreword apparently. Wonder if that rumour was overheard in the wine bar yesterday? File it alongside the Chic Young one.

You are the exact carbon copy of the things you and your friends say about mcmurdo, in that he only chooses certain things to reply to.

You portray something that you are not........................so quite frankly frankie keep you snide remarks about me to posts in response to questions you have been asked to answer.

Smith said he has never been one to take a back seat.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Where was Smith championed as our saviour? I recall reading about how he might stabilise the board and help that way as a figure to be trusted by one and all - and, again, I've no recollection of anything from (or about) Smith on silence being a stance.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I genuinely haven't seen this stuff and I'd be interested to read about it.

A number of bloggers have been after watty, plus Watty said that he has never been one to take a back seat, frankly frankie is so caught up in watty that if watty pissed on him he would be proud of being on the receiving end...............the recent reappearance of frankly frankie has shown a new side to him.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Yes the taking of minutes has certainly been part of any meeting I've attended this past year. There will be historic paperwork and if you are a member you are entitled to this information. if you're not a member you can join and request the information from the members' secretary.

But you're a member. Why would I need to "re-join"? (see what I did there?)

Go on.........do it for me.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

There are 16 current members and we are permitted 20. I'm not sure of the number seeking re-election but happy to find out and respond in due course.

Who got bumped rst said 17 boardmembers.

[bawsburst 1,381]

I was reading & interested in the development of the duress argument. Happy to comment & answer any questions I can.

Election to the board of the RST requires proposal and seconding, the rules are sponsored by Supporters Direct and approved by the FCA. There are 4 spaces on the board at the moment so anyone seeking to join can be co-opted prior to the AGM when the voting will take place, circa end of September / beginning of October. The term of office is 2 years so in addition to the current vacancies there will also be the proposal and re-election (if they are seeking re-election) of those board members whose 2 year terms are at an end. Those seeking re-election must stand against all those seeking election and the members votes will determine the board for the next year accordingly.

Any one wishing to be co-opted or seeking election at the AGM can contact me (DM) and I'll gladly help with the process.

The duress subject is not an argument it is fact, as stated previously if our former chairman's statement is factual the remedy lies in the law of the land, however it will not be addressed by those that have no argument to countermand it, the real question is why the board have not seen fit to revisit this 5 way agreement and challenge it.

Any threat to discipline/sanction/suspend our club for doing so would have been remedied by the application for an interdict to halt all and any Scottish football under the auspices of the sfa until such matters were resolved, I doubt no I am certain that the sfa would have and will cave in under any such direct lawful action.

Our board is another matter as is their will to defend our club, we do not deserve them and they certainly do not deserve us, to coin a phrase, we deserve better.

[Taipan 580]

The duress subject is not an argument it is fact, as stated previously if our former chairman's statement is factual the remedy lies in the law of the land, however it will not be addressed by those that have no argument to countermand it, the real question is why the board have not seen fit to revisit this 5 way agreement and challenge it.

Any threat to discipline/sanction/suspend our club for doing so would have been remedied by the application for an interdict to halt all and any Scottish football under the auspices of the sfa until such matters were resolved, I doubt no I am certain that the sfa would have and will cave in under any such direct lawful action.

Our board is another matter as is their will to defend our club, we do not deserve them and they certainly do not deserve us, to coin a phrase, we deserve better.

Duress makes a contract voidable not void so, in the first instance, the Club would need to be seeking to have a contract avoided. It's unlikely that a court would permit avoidance of the 5 way agreement at this stage as we have implied acceptance by playing all of the 3rd division games. I don't believe this remedy is still open to the Club.

[Taipan 580]

Who got bumped rst said 17 boardmembers.

The term of office is 2 years but any board member is free to resign without notice. There were 17 serving officers and now there are 16. All the co-opting and resigning matters will be summarised at the AGM for the members in accordance with the rules and minutes made available to the membership.

[bawsburst 1,381]

Duress makes a contract voidable not void so, in the first instance, the Club would need to be seeking to have a contract avoided. It's unlikely that a court would permit avoidance of the 5 way agreement at this stage as we have implied acceptance by playing all of the 3rd division games. I don't believe this remedy is still open to the Club.

The question is why the club have not saught any remedy, you appear as do others to deliberately avoid MM's direct statement;

"So, under duress, we have taken the difficult decision to accept some sanctions in order to move forward".

That is prima facie grounds to go to court and request said contract to be declared null and void, also you are very wrong this remedy is still open to the club, perhaps you don't believe MM's simple uncomplicated statement.

[Calgacus 88]

There was no duress in the legal sense.There was no unlawful threat or coercion. There was only duress in the sense that the SFA etc was in a much stronger negotiating position than we were, they had something we needed desperately - a license to play football, and they could dictate the terms of any agreement. Rangers were in a very weak position.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

The term of office is 2 years but any board member is free to resign without notice. There were 17 serving officers and now there are 16. All the co-opting and resigning matters will be summarised at the AGM for the members in accordance with the rules and minutes made available to the membership.

Thank you for a reply, indeed a strange occurrence.................so tell me why does such a minuscule organisation need 17 people on a board?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

There was no duress in the legal sense.There was no unlawful threat or coercion. There was only duress in the sense that the SFA etc was in a much stronger negotiating position than we were, they had something we needed desperately - a license to play football, and they could dictate the terms of any agreement. Rangers were in a very weak position.

I would argue the point we blinked first........if as many suspect they brought in the ridiculous points in which this was the only way they would gave the club a licence then we could have gone to UEFA and the Courts initially in Scotland and in Europe in that these unlawful (we would have won in the courts) Plus we could have fought to have all Scottish Football stopped re cups and leagues as they restricted our right to trade plus UEFA/FIFA state the governing body in whatever country has to help a club as and when required.

[Taipan 580]

Thank you for a reply, indeed a strange occurrence.................so tell me why does such a minuscule organisation need 17 people on a board?

It's a good question, large boards are often dysfunctional and under achieving whereas small boards are all too often authoritarian and not reflective of its members. It's finding the balance.

The maximum permitted under the rules is 20 and reflective of UEFA's vision of how ownership of football clubs will evolve in years to come (rightly or wrongly) and how the support should be so represented. The reality is that those proposed and seconded tend to become board members whereas ideally (and presumably the vision) there would be challenges for places on the board and thus representative of the diversity of our support.

[Resting in my account 231]

Where in Mather's statement does it say that he doesn't think he's up to the job of CEO?

You explain to me how Rangers were supposed to get all the 1st Division clubs who have had additional income dangled in front of them to reject moving to an SPL2 if this vote was rejected? What exactly did you, TheHost or anyone else want to the club to do, specifically, except make a statement that would have changed nothing about the outcome?

How about this Christopher. The financial carrots to SFL1 clubs to jump ship for an SPL2 only held water if Rangers were to join an SPL2 set up also. There are no 2 ways about it, Div 1 clubs can threaten all they like but they could have done nothing without us. The morally and fiscally insolvent SPL needed the SFL for our inclusion in TV games, hence the need to "reconstruct" or in laymans terns takeover.

If our mute Chairman or any other spokesperson spoke out and stated clearly that we would not join any SPL2 nor indeed SPL1 then smaller SFL clubs that welcomed us with open arms would not have been bullied into accepting the takeover. Instead, "Real Rangers Men" are "humble" to accept full membership and be able to play trialists in the first 4 games. McCoist will have lost his ready made excuse of losing the first 4 games, but heyho. Our silence ensured clubs were bullied into accepting this farce, if Charles Green and his team (who actually stood up to the plate when it mattered and saved us) were not forced out by "Real Rangers Men" who put nothing into the club then we would have stood alongside the SFL clubs with Longmuir and Ballentyne. Once Green was forced out, so too was our integrity in standing alongside our friends. Dignified silence on the Gravy Train ride, but heyho the big bad businessmen are away so all is well. Our club doesn't need Gravytrain passengers with jobs for the boys, it will see us enter Administration #2. We need businessmen that realise for them to make money we need to be successful and protect the brand by fighting our detractors, not getting into bed so we can be their bitches for the forseeable.

Given Fans groups and the majority of bloggers were working to the Gravytrain agenda, little wonder the future is so bleak. Bill McMurdo is the only frequent blogger to have any dignity left, of course alongside the fabulous D'artagnan who has only Rangers interests at heart.

Hell mend those with an agenda Christopher, any wonder the club is nothing but a limp wristed shadow of itself

[bawsburst 1,381]

I would argue the point we blinked first........if as many suspect they brought in the ridiculous points in which this was the only way they would gave the club a licence then we could have gone to UEFA and the Courts initially in Scotland and in Europe in that these unlawful (we would have won in the courts) Plus we could have fought to have all Scottish Football stopped re cups and leagues as they restricted our right to trade plus UEFA/FIFA state the governing body in whatever country has to help a club as and when required.

You are pissing in the wind trying to explain the finer and not so fine points of the subject to those willing to do anything but fight the good and lawful fight.

[thehost 11,061]

It's a good question, large boards are often dysfunctional and under achieving whereas small boards are all too often authoritarian and not reflective of its members. It's finding the balance.

The maximum permitted under the rules is 20 and reflective of UEFA's vision of how ownership of football clubs will evolve in years to come (rightly or wrongly) and how the support should be so represented. The reality is that those proposed and seconded tend to become board members whereas ideally (and presumably the vision) there would be challenges for places on the board and thus representative of the diversity of our support.

Which brings us back to the original point.

The RST board commenting on the politics of the boardroom and organising that other organisations release statements has brought us to the stage where we now have a football club unprepared to defend itself.

As a member I am pretty disgusted as to the involvement of the RST in boardroom politics and also their apparent inability to represent the wider fanbase.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Which brings us back to the original point.

The RST board commenting on the politics of the boardroom and organising that other organisations release statements has brought us to the stage where we now have a football club unprepared to defend itself.

As a member I am pretty disgusted as to the involvement of the RST in boardroom politics and also their apparent inability to represent the wider fanbase.

Many would be surprised that you're surprised by them.

Many have seen this coming.

Many suspect that a 'club jacket fitting' is the end game for some.

The Modus Operandi of some would lend credence to that view.

[nachothelegend 1,932]

How about this Christopher. The financial carrots to SFL1 clubs to jump ship for an SPL2 only held water if Rangers were to join an SPL2 set up also. There are no 2 ways about it, Div 1 clubs can threaten all they like but they could have done nothing without us. The morally and fiscally insolvent SPL needed the SFL for our inclusion in TV games, hence the need to "reconstruct" or in laymans terns takeover.

If our mute Chairman or any other spokesperson spoke out and stated clearly that we would not join any SPL2 nor indeed SPL1 then smaller SFL clubs that welcomed us with open arms would not have been bullied into accepting the takeover. Instead, "Real Rangers Men" are "humble" to accept full membership and be able to play trialists in the first 4 games. McCoist will have lost his ready made excuse of losing the first 4 games, but heyho. Our silence ensured clubs were bullied into accepting this farce, if Charles Green and his team (who actually stood up to the plate when it mattered and saved us) were not forced out by "Real Rangers Men" who put nothing into the club then we would have stood alongside the SFL clubs with Longmuir and Ballentyne. Once Green was forced out, so too was our integrity in standing alongside our friends. Dignified silence on the Gravy Train ride, but heyho the big bad businessmen are away so all is well. Our club doesn't need Gravytrain passengers with jobs for the boys, it will see us enter Administration #2. We need businessmen that realise for them to make money we need to be successful and protect the brand by fighting our detractors, not getting into bed so we can be their bitches for the forseeable.

Given Fans groups and the majority of bloggers were working to the Gravytrain agenda, little wonder the future is so bleak. Bill McMurdo is the only frequent blogger to have any dignity left, of course alongside the fabulous D'artagnan who has only Rangers interests at heart.

Hell mend those with an agenda Christopher, any wonder the club is nothing but a limp wristed shadow of itself

Great Post mate.

[thehost 11,061]

I see you reading this RST, be great to get some comment from you

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

I see you reading this RST, be great to get some comment from you

She's not officially clocked on yet.

[RST 19]

I see you reading this RST, be great to get some comment from you

I'm just back from a weekend in Fife. I need to go back to the original question about why we didn't make a comment. My answer would be that I don't know. Perhaps it would have been futile to say anything afterthe event.

[thehost 11,061]

I'm just back from a weekend in Fife. I need to go back to the original question about why we didn't make a comment. My answer would be that I don't know. Perhaps it would have been futile to say anything afterthe event.

The point being that you decided to get involved in boardroom politics but you wont ask pertinent questions of how the club is being run.

I know you wont like this thread but it would be good to think abut the points being made.

Having board members organising for other groups to release statements is not particularly smart. All it does is reinforce that their is a malign influence of a few people who try to manipulate things by pretending to speak for fans.

[RST 19]

The point being that you decided to get involved in boardroom politics but you wont ask pertinent questions of how the club is being run.

I know you wont like this thread but it would be good to think abut the points being made.

Having board members organising for other groups to release statements is not particularly smart. All it does is reinforce that their is a malign influence of a few people who try to manipulate things by pretending to speak for fans.

I'm not sure what you mean in your last paragraph about board members organising for other groups to release statements.