Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted November 20, 2013 Author Share Posted November 20, 2013 Ive nae idea mate.I'll go back to what i said yesterday,why do people automatically assume that because you're no fan of the present board that you automatically are in love with sos,rst or whoever.Im not.You ever heard of ocd?Think you may have it with regards to the "other side"And btw, i was banned from ff on day 1 of posting.Totally irrelevant post which ignores the legitimate question posed in the OPThanks for your contribution anyway Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 RST………Tick Tock ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtuoso 27,180 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 RST………Tick Tock !A busted flush indeed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamibianBear 1,851 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 There are plenty of RST members on hereI'm sure they will be along soon to tell us about the voting process when they changed the fundamental aims of their organisationSurely a democratic organisation must only change their aims at an AGM anyway? The reason I said (earlier) to ask hem on their website is that there you might actually get an answer from them rather than the propaganda merchants that, at times, infest here.You should read Oakshaw Bear on FF. I believe he's at the very top of the RST and a more vicious, smear merchant you will ever hope to come across. I think most Bears agree in principle with some sort of fan representation, it's just a pity a vicious clique have seized control though.However, it has been mentioned by some board members the majority want rid of the nasty element and wish to reach out to all Rangers fans, no matter the history involved. I and many others have been contacted by the decent board members (majority) and told of their disdain for the nasty clique.The RST is a great idea gone horribly wrong due to profiteers and egotists.I have no interest in joining FF and have never been on that site. I actually think the idea of fans representation/ownership under some guise is a very good idea. However, after spending some considerable time looking into it, I decided the RST (for me) was not the way ahead. I am interested to see if and where they ever go with this but want real answers; not Dennis's current take on it. Oh, and a new leader at the helm with no agenda also.I reckon fan ownership was dropped in favour of fans representation when somebody realised, or was told, there was a blazer in it for them.I see the usual suspects jumped on the OP and this thread with their "move along, nothing to see here" nonsense. I'm always suspicious when I see folk trying to stop questions being asked.We need transparency Not censorship.Unfortunately for the RST they are now perceived to be the "worst of the worst" and have done little in recent months to alleviate any of that thinking by others. The other reason I have never considered FF is that the rubbish I have just written in this post would probably just get deleted on there whilst the Admins on here tolerate all our nonsense.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non_Sucumbi 876 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 It looks like 'fan ownership' is now off the agendaBe interesting to know the result of the vote they had within the membership to implement such a change in strategyI wonder if their sectet meetings with Mini brought this about Fan ownership was always a smokescreen while the real issue was about getting a seat on the board for one or two of the RST heid-yins with mugs donating ten quid a year 'support the cause'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKIP BEAR 370 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Totally irrelevant post which ignores the legitimate question posed in the OPThanks for your contribution anywayTotally irrelevant post because i don't agree with you.Maybe i'd have taken your original post seriously mate if it wasn't done with a large dose of sarcasm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted November 20, 2013 Author Share Posted November 20, 2013 Totally irrelevant post because i don't agree with you.Maybe i'd have taken your original post seriously mate if it wasn't done with a large dose of sarcasm.Or you could have just addressed it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKIP BEAR 370 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Or you could have just addressed itI did.I said that i'd no idea.Im not a member so how would i know.Anyway roll on the agm,i just hope that whoever loses out accepts the decision and lets the board do their job.They should then be given until the next agm to do their job and if they're not doing it properly then the shareholders can turf them out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I did.I said that i'd no idea.Im not a member so how would i know.Anyway roll on the agm,i just hope that whoever loses out accepts the decision and lets the board do their job.They should then be given until the next agm to do their job and if they're not doing it properly then the shareholders can turf them out.So we'll have this drama and build up every year? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKIP BEAR 370 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 So we'll have this drama and build up every year?That'll be upto the fans and shareholders.Would you rather there was no agm every year?Clubs up and down the land hold agm's,the clue is in the letters agm. Annual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 That'll be upto the fans and shareholders.Would you rather there was no agm every year?Clubs up and down the land hold agm's,the clue is in the letters agm. Annual.Obviously but at our previous AGMs there wasn't the possiblity of people being voted off I'm sure? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKIP BEAR 370 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Obviously but at our previous AGMs there wasn't the possiblity of people being voted off I'm sure?Of course there was a vote mate, but they usually went pretty smoothly and the re-election of board members have usually been a formality.Although with sdm holding 90% of the club the vote was pretty meaningless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted November 20, 2013 Author Share Posted November 20, 2013 So to recap - the aims have gone from fan "ownership" to fan "representation" and nobody seems to know why and when. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosmhdo 1,879 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 So to recap - the aims have gone from fan "ownership" to fan "representation" and nobody seems to know why and when.A big boy did it, then ran away.And it all happened at ten to eight.What day? Who gives a fuck anyway, they are in no position of power as far as I can see and never will be imo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamibianBear 1,851 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 So to recap - the aims have gone from fan "ownership" to fan "representation" and nobody seems to know why and when.When PM sided with the RST maybe? Do we have confirmation that this is indeed a policy change of the RST and that it was democratically voted upon a a formal AGM/EGM/SGM? Can anyone answer this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Ownership 101 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'm an RST member, because I believe in fan ownership. If I were in charge of RST policy, I would only speak about issues which could be related back to fan ownership. There are enough other fan organisations to complain about big, bad Peter Liewell.As far as I'm aware, the aims are the same as always.I would have thought it was a logical first step towards some sort of fan ownership to get a fan rep on the board to help oversee such a process?I'm really not sure what the scandal is here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 2,991 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'm really not sure what the scandal is here?Well, asking people to invest in your organisation, for proxy votes over your shares because their aims were fan ownership, then water this down and change it to fan representation is a bit underhand (if the OP is right). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehost 11,061 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Well, asking people to invest in your organisation, for proxy votes over your shares because their aims were fan ownership, then water this down and change it to fan representation is a bit underhand (if the OP is right).you mean like asking for a vote, at their first AGM, not liking the result then after a few folk have left ask to vote on the same motion again to get the outcome "they" desired. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Ownership 101 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Well, asking people to invest in your organisation, for proxy votes over your shares because their aims were fan ownership, then water this down and change it to fan representation is a bit underhand (if the OP is right).That's my point though, what has changed?The ultimate aim is obviously still fan ownership. The reason people want fan ownership is to install a proper moral governance the Rangers board and have geneuine influence in the running on the club. In what way is getting some fan representation on the board prior to fan ownership a departure from that? It would seem like a logicial first step to me? Just because you get fan representation doesn't mean you stop pursuing fan ownership, does it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvayblue 0 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 That's my point though, what has changed?The ultimate aim is obviously still fan ownership. The reason people want fan ownership is to install a proper moral governance the Rangers board and have geneuine influence in the running on the club. In what way is getting some fan representation on the board prior to fan ownership a departure from that? It would seem like a logicial first step to me? Just because you get fan representation doesn't mean you stop pursuing fan ownership, does it?Please don't use the word'moral' in the same breath as the RST.Moral they aint. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 That's my point though, what has changed?The ultimate aim is obviously still fan ownership. The reason people want fan ownership is to install a proper moral governance the Rangers board and have geneuine influence in the running on the club. In what way is getting some fan representation on the board prior to fan ownership a departure from that? It would seem like a logicial first step to me? Just because you get fan representation doesn't mean you stop pursuing fan ownership, does it?The difference between "ownership" and "representation" is massiveWere you not consulted on this change? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamibianBear 1,851 Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 That's my point though, what has changed?The ultimate aim is obviously still fan ownership. The reason people want fan ownership is to install a proper moral governance the Rangers board and have geneuine influence in the running on the club. In what way is getting some fan representation on the board prior to fan ownership a departure from that? It would seem like a logicial first step to me? Just because you get fan representation doesn't mean you stop pursuing fan ownership, does it?The difference between "ownership" and "representation" is massiveWere you not consulted on this change?Swally is 100% correct here. A policy change of a democratic organisation should be voted upon by its members at a AGM/EGM/SGM. To just decide, at board level without consulting your members, for complete policy changes of an entire organisation is undemocratic.Were any members of the RST (those that comment on here) consulted on this? Can someone not banned from FF ask them directly? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB 599 Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Hell the RST have a groundskeeper who's job is to constantly be moving the goal posts. The biggest oxymoron going they are neither Rangers nor Trust "worthy"/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.