Club 1872 Meeting.

[Ace 3,556]

8 minutes ago, Wullies_bowly_legs said:

A lot of people will never forgive the 'merger' with RST. Sorry I mean 1872. The excuses and reasoning given were pretty thin and as things have progressed a lot of folk believe now it was all pre-planned. The brazen denials were strident but were really just semantics.

Some of the older bears may remember we tried to sign a player from a Scottish Club only to be told they would never sell to Rangers. Next thing you know said player signed for a team down south and surprise, surprise only stayed a season then came back to us. Was that a merger too? 

Folk keep taking about the RST in regards to c1872, can anyone tell me who from RST is currently on the c1872 board?

If it was an RST takeover, it wasn't very successful IMO 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

9 minutes ago, Ace said:

Folk keep taking about the RST in regards to c1872, can anyone tell me who from RST is currently on the c1872 board?

If it was an RST takeover, it wasn't very successful IMO 

Really??

So the RST are hand in glove with King/Mini/Gilligan/Graham & Sloth but they have no serious money. 

A RIFC board lead idea to merger the RST with the cash rich RF is pushed with lie after lie. 

We have a merger and low and behold who is on the working party Graham & Sloth and then who ends up on the board of 1872 Sloth and 3 more with personal and professional links to King/mini & Gilligan making them 4 against 3 when it comes to any vote. 

You then have the 3 resigning because of the antics of the 4 leaving them in charge. 

Aye it's a shit takeover right enough so it is. ?????

[plumbGER 24,518]

56 minutes ago, Bobby Hume said:

 

Two top posts mate.

 

Cheers mate

That's just my honest take on things from what i have seen so far.

I have no agenda, i only want what is best for the club without fans being fleeced and dictated to by what appears to be the boards puppets.

I'm just a regular fan who goes to games and buys programs, lottery etc

[Sweetheart 8,458]

12 hours ago, Ace said:

Folk keep taking about the RST in regards to c1872, can anyone tell me who from RST is currently on the c1872 board?

If it was an RST takeover, it wasn't very successful IMO 

I think both the RST and RF have been had.

CG infiltrated the RST to climb the pyramid of power and landed himself a place in the Rangers offices.  RIFC  lead the idea to merge RST and RF into Club 1872. 

Imho both RST and RF need to work together to freeze their shares and the cash saved for shares from C1872 authority and RFC influence. until this mess is sorted.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

14 hours ago, Wullies_bowly_legs said:

The most important issue is to somehow now get control of the cash away from the board of 1872. Whether it gets put into something as simple as a savings account, trust or simple interest paying account which can earn cash until what to do with it is decided. What a pity RF cannot be resurrected to what it was before. I still cannot believe the shenanigans and manouvering that led to the brazen stitch up of the "merger". How some folk got away with that is beyond belief and it just goes to show misplaced confidence and a well placed dodgy question enabled the blue pound collectors to take over power when they should have been run out of town.

I'm sure we could find a group of responsible people to be the trustees of the cash such as Walter Smith, Gordon Smith, JG etc. Once the cash is out of the control of the usual suspects I would not be surprised if they moved on. Then the support could assume their rightful place in charge of the cash that they raised themselves and how it should be spent - a clue here - shares, shares and shares.

 

 

Herein lies the problem for many of us. An organisation with share power is always going to attract the parasites who are power-hungry; like flies to a shit in summer. Such an organisation will never be able to speak for the fans as a whole. We need an organisation which will represent the fanbase without any add-ons.

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

 

I just want to hit my head repeatedly against a wall.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

34 minutes ago, eskbankloyal said:

 

I just want to hit my head repeatedly against a wall.

I don't think they realise how angry members are and that's why they want to view the meeting. By not offering a way to view the meeting, more members will come to the venue and their anger could escalate if they can't get into the venue.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

1 hour ago, eskbankloyal said:

 

I just want to hit their heads repeatedly against a wall.

That would be a much better idea than your original one. 

They can't control a video in the way they can control 'notes' from the meeting so, of course, they don't see the point.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Jesus wept, he doesn't see the need for members to see the meeting. ??

I take it the William is William Cowie? 

 

[Sweetheart 8,458]

30 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

That would be a much better idea than your original one. 

They can't control a video in the way they can control 'notes' from the meeting so, of course, they don't see the point.

It seems that way. Will they allow for the meeting to be voice recorded and then put onto scribed or something?

[thebooler 4,509]

1 minute ago, Sweetheart said:

It seems that way. Will they allow for the meeting to be voice recorded and then put onto scribed or something?

Anyone with a mobile can record the meeting. 

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just now, Sweetheart said:

It seems that way. Will they allow for the meeting to be voice recorded and then put onto scribed pr something?

I guess someone could try and make a recording and see what the reaction is. There is no specific ban on 3rd party recordings that I can see.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

Just now, thebooler said:

Anyone with a mobile can record the meeting. 

I thought to reference anything it would need to be out in the open that the meeting was being recorded.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

1 minute ago, RFC Eagle said:

I guess someone could try and make a recording and see what the reaction is. There is no specific ban on 3rd party recordings that I can see.

I think the response to that would be like 'Charlotte Fakes' nobody willing to go near it.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

Is there not a device on twitter that allows voice streaming?

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just now, Sweetheart said:

I think the response to that would be like 'Charlotte Fakes' nobody willing to go near it.

I meant the reaction at the meeting. There should be no reason to object to a member making their own record of the meeting.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

Just now, RFC Eagle said:

I meant the reaction at the meeting. There should be no reason to object to a member making their own record of the meeting.

I can't see why there should be. I can't see why it can't be filmed either. considering why the meeting was called and the limited number of spaces. 

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

2 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

Is there not a device on twitter that allows voice streaming?

There's Periscope or they could make a recording on Webex or something similar. Surely a proportion of the 97% of the 9000 members who won't be there (either by choice or for venue capacity/timing reasons) would want access to the meeting in some way?

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

2 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

I can't see why there should be. I can't see why it can't be filmed either. considering why the meeting was called and the limited number of spaces. 

Nobody could see why it shouldn't be filmed except one of the Board members (who nominated the divisive one).

Maybe I'm just far too cynical in my later years but I have been on enough committees to know how some people operate.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

4 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

Nobody could see why it shouldn't be filmed except one of the Board members (who nominated the divisive one).

Maybe I'm just far too cynical in my later years but I have been on enough committees to know how some people operate.

Does one director have the power to veto members wishes to have this meeting recorded?

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just now, Sweetheart said:

Does one director have the power to veto members wishes to have this meeting recorded?

I don't know that it will work that way. There is no reason why a member should be stopped from recording but if enough there are belligerent enough it could cause problems. Its not a public meeting as such so they could object that the recording could be distributed outwith the membership.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

Some years ago I travelled through to Edinburgh to attend, what I considered, a very important meeting. I was not alone in that assumption as the original premises were inadequate for the numbers who turned up. In view of the importance of the subject, and to try to accomodate all, the meeting was adjourned and re-convened a couple of weeks later in the Usher Hall.

If any member turns up for this meeting and is refused entry on the grounds of capacity, surely the meeting cannot proceed as it then means that members are being denied their say. So much for OMOV. Yet another falsehood perpitrated by RF/Club 1872.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, Corky True Legend said:

Some years ago I travelled through to Edinburgh to attend, what I considered, a very important meeting. I was not alone in that assumption as the original premises were inadequate for the numbers who turned up. In view of the importance of the subject, and to try to accomodate all, the meeting was adjourned and re-convened a couple of weeks later in the Usher Hall.

If any member turns up for this meeting and is refused entry on the grounds of capacity, surely the meeting cannot proceed as it then means that members are being denied their say. So much for OMOV. Yet another falsehood perpitrated by RF/Club 1872.

Ask who can/wants to attend get the numbers, book a venue to hold said number. 

Record the full meeting for those who can't/won't attend, job done. 

But no these 4 cunts go at half arsed, just like this whole fiasco has been from the get go. 

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

2 minutes ago, Corky True Legend said:

Some years ago I travelled through to Edinburgh to attend, what I considered, a very important meeting. I was not alone in that assumption as the original premises were inadequate for the numbers who turned up. In view of the importance of the subject, and to try to accomodate all, the meeting was adjourned and re-convened a couple of weeks later in the Usher Hall.

If any member turns up for this meeting and is refused entry on the grounds of capacity, surely the meeting cannot proceed as it then means that members are being denied their say. So much for OMOV. Yet another falsehood perpitrated by RF/Club 1872.

I think they are trying to claim that because questions can be e-mailed and its 'just a Q and A' meeting that it doesn't need that sort of rigour attached. Its just an example of the incompetence or connivance of the remaining Board members that they are behaving in the manner they are. 

I wonder how many names they got on the list and if anyone has been told the list is full? 

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Ask who can/wants to attend get the numbers, book a venue to hold said number. 

Record the full meeting for those who can't/won't attend, job done. 

But no these 4 cunts go at half arsed, just like this whole fiasco has been from the get go. 

You really should quit the sensible posts it makes it sound as though its the easiest thing in the world. Why on earth would they want to do things in a straightforward manner. It would go completely against the norm for them.