Club 1872 Meeting.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,626]

3 hours ago, Taipan said:

The one thing that is obvious is that there are Bears we all trust, that believe in our having a voice at board level, these are not the manipulists, not the policy writers, nor the populist.

They are the season ticket holders, the away support, the RSCs.

These are the people we should entrust our holding to, and they should direct not administer. 

So what does this mean to me?

A ST holder who travels to away games with my RSC.

Cut to the chase.

Who? What? How? Why?

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

6 hours ago, Corky True Legend said:

How on earth do you reconcile the portion which you have put in bold with your final sentence. They are diametrically opposed.

No they aren't you seem unable to see the difference between influence (the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself) and actually being the owner of the club. Holding shares isn't FO unless you hold the majority of shares. 

The statement is anything but 'diametrically opposed' to my previous post unless you have utterly redefined the concept of FO for this purpose.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

7 hours ago, Taipan said:

The one thing that is obvious is that there are Bears we all trust, that believe in our having a voice at board level, these are not the manipulists, not the policy writers, nor the populist.

They are the season ticket holders, the away support, the RSCs.

These are the people we should entrust our holding to, and they should direct not administer. 

However, it never works out that way. The self serving seving trough guzzling blazer chasers have their way.

Whitney is the man, so what category is he in? The good intentioned or the blazer chasing trough guzzler?

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

They all end up with delusions of grandeur. Fan spivs!

The one thing we don't need is a Trotskyist rabble CIC. Yes a simple ST holding and RSC group truly representive of the ordinary fans at large would be fine. We don't need SD or a CIC to do it and excert influence at board level. Whitney proved that point when the last board were removed, but he was the hired hand of another trough guzzling spiv to gain control.

100% against fan ownership, but nothing against an organised group representative of the fan base at large and NO money involved.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

3 hours ago, RFC Eagle said:

No they aren't you seem unable to see the difference between influence (the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself) and actually being the owner of the club. Holding shares isn't FO unless you hold the majority of shares. 

The statement is anything but 'diametrically opposed' to my previous post unless you have utterly redefined the concept of FO for this purpose.

You highlighted "ownership of the club" and then said "not solely FO in any way shape or form". Ownership is defined as "the state or fact of being an owner"; thus it follows that your statements are diametrically opposed.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

Only catching up with this now.

Remember how Dingwall banned all mention of RF from FF / Rab Marshall being banned / sin-binned. Dingwall unable to handle the rise of RF as support for the RST continued to wane.

Then the idea of C1872 is mooted, Dingwall all for it...Rab / Greg and Chris Graham being given 'freedom of the city FF' in which to propagate the idea of merging the groups.

All this on the back of us being lied to about the groups never merging.

Found this whilst looking for something else. Whilst we were being lied to, the RST and RF were already cosing up:

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

3 hours ago, Corky True Legend said:

You highlighted "ownership of the club" and then said "not solely FO in any way shape or form". Ownership is defined as "the state or fact of being an owner"; thus it follows that your statements are diametrically opposed.

Comprehension isn't your strong point is it? Read the entire part I put in bold and then check the entire sentence rather than the selective part in bold and you'll see it isn't SOLELY (key word) about FO. This is perfectly consistent with the statement (taken directly from the SD Scotland website). FO is one of many ways Supporters groups gain influence and SD supports all of these approaches.

[thebooler 4,509]

5 hours ago, Corky True Legend said:

You highlighted "ownership of the club" and then said "not solely FO in any way shape or form". Ownership is defined as "the state or fact of being an owner"; thus it follows that your statements are diametrically opposed.

Gie it a fukkin bye.

Am lost wae aw these fukkin big words!

[thebooler 4,509]

3 hours ago, Virtuoso said:

Only catching up with this now.

Remember how Dingwall banned all mention of RF from FF / Rab Marshall being banned / sin-binned. Dingwall unable to handle the rise of RF as support for the RST continued to wane.

Then the idea of C1872 is mooted, Dingwall all for it...Rab / Greg and Chris Graham being given 'freedom of the city FF' in which to propagate the idea of merging the groups.

All this on the back of us being lied to about the groups never merging.

Found this whilst looking for something else. Whilst we were being lied to, the RST and RF were already cosing up:

I always said their online spats were staged mate. 

[thebooler 4,509]

It's laughable that big Rab always preaches his support for the support, yet when he had the previous Louden, he put his prices up on a matchday.

What a way tae treat yer fellow fans eh?

[Virtuoso 27,180]

1 minute ago, thebooler said:

It's laughable that big Rab always preaches his support for the support, yet when had the previous Louden, he put his prices up on a matchday.

What a way tae treat yer fellow fans eh?

Is that definite or just an online rumour?

[thebooler 4,509]

1 hour ago, Virtuoso said:

Is that definite or just an online rumour?

This is a text message from a friend mate. I've no reason to doubt him.

"I don't @ will not ever set foot in any business run by that Rab marshal. We used 2 go into his pub on paisley rd west m8 every Friday. Then on the sat he would Fleece @ rob the rangers supporters by increasing the prices 4 match days. He's not the type u need at IBROX"

[Copland bear 7,966]

We are like something out the bloody life of Brain as far as supporter groups go, so many splinter groups now, in the good old days it was simple you had 2 fan groups, The UVF and the UDA.???

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

3 hours ago, RFC Eagle said:

Comprehension isn't your strong point is it? Read the entire part I put in bold and then check the entire sentence rather than the selective part in bold and you'll see it isn't SOLELY (key word) about FO. This is perfectly consistent with the statement (taken directly from the SD Scotland website). FO is one of many ways Supporters groups gain influence and SD supports all of these approaches.

English language is not your strong point is it? Perhaps you attended classes of ESL. You clearly stated that FO is the ideal to SD. Now you are trying to say that it is not. Make up your mind.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just now, Corky True Legend said:

English language is not your strong point is it? Perhaps you attended classes of ESL. You clearly stated that FO is the ideal to SD. Now you are trying to say that it is not. Make up your mind.

I'll take my comprehension over yours any day. You seem unable to get the point that FO isn't the only method of supporter involvement that SD supports. You suggested it was the ONLY thing they are interested in. You are utterly wrong and no amount of selective highlighting will make your premise in any way correct.

The fact you don't understand the meaning and use of the words influence and solely tends to lose your attempts at debate any credibility. English rather than Scots-English is and always has been my native language. 

To recap the FULL quotes you are using selectively:

From the website: Supporters Direct has been working since 2000 to help supporters gain influence in the running and ownership of their club.

My contention: not solely FO in any way shape or form

Just to help you out I've underlined the key words you seem to be having a problem with. 

Further information:

We would regard 'structured engagement' as being 'Any form of relationship between supporters and a club (its directors or senior officials, but it could also include others such as senior managers relevant to a particular issue) that is mandated as part of a formal agreement between the two. Supporters Direct believes that this is a function that can be carried out most suitably through a supporters' trust, and has put together a paper explaining how it could work.

Case Study (would seem to be something that would be sustainable for Rangers):

Arsenal Supporters’ Trust (AST)

AST has developed its links with the club over the years as an organisation that represents the views of supporters on ownership and business strategy issues. The AST seeks to act as a critical friend to the club, scrutinising operations and commenting on key issues in a constructive manner.

On occasions they have been able to offer remedies to issues faced by the club and their independent view is often welcomed. The relationship is best demonstrated by the creation of Arsenal Fanshare where the club and the AST worked closely together.

Essentially, AST has demonstrated its relevance and offered input to the club, although it should be acknowledged that Arsenal FC are perceived as one of the country’s more progressive clubs and thus more amenable to the development these relationships. The engagement of most relevance to the paper is their regular dialogue with the club, which includes:

• There are currently two to four general catch ups a year with the club CEO with all areas of the club’s operations on the agenda

• AST has specific briefings on financial developments at which the clubs report and accounts are discussed and explained

• Arsenal FC holds an end of season open meeting Q&A with AST members and shareholders/other supporters

• AST has occasional meetings with presentations from senior members of Arsenal’s executive team such as marketing, medical and communications

Notice how this is highlighted by SD as a model and FO is not mentioned. 

[Capital Blu 615]

I wouldn't be too quick to associate myself with SD.  They are very much English based and don't even have any Board representation from Scotland.

However, they do have links with the SFA/SPFL and receive funding from them as well as the English FA.  That means that they are not a truly independent Fans organisation, and are now effectively a tame in-house puppet organisation for both the SFA and FA.   (sounds a bit familiar)

I believe that Paul Goodwin, who was their Scottish based rep. until two or three years ago, was forced out at the behest of Petrie and co., because SD Scotland was becoming a bit too vocal for their liking, despite their work in helping Hearts, Dunfermline and other clubs in recent years.

I know that an independent organisation called Fans Supporters Federation (FSF) was set up in England and now has 500K members, which means that the FA and Westminster government agencies can't ignore them.  Similarly, Paul Goodwin has set up a rival supporters group in Scotland called the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) with the intention of obtaining similar leverage with Scottish clubs, the SFA and the government.  

I think SD, FSF and the SFSA can all provide good advice and support, but personally I'd prefer to be associated with a truly independent fans group.

 

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

1 hour ago, RFC Eagle said:

I'll take my comprehension over yours any day. You seem unable to get the point that FO isn't the only method of supporter involvement that SD supports. You suggested it was the ONLY thing they are interested in. You are utterly wrong and no amount of selective highlighting will make your premise in any way correct.

The fact you don't understand the meaning and use of the words influence and solely tends to lose your attempts at debate any credibility. English rather than Scots-English is and always has been my native language. 

To recap the FULL quotes you are using selectively:

From the website: Supporters Direct has been working since 2000 to help supporters gain influence in the running and ownership of their club.

My contention: not solely FO in any way shape or form

Just to help you out I've underlined the key words you seem to be having a problem with. 

Further information:

We would regard 'structured engagement' as being 'Any form of relationship between supporters and a club (its directors or senior officials, but it could also include others such as senior managers relevant to a particular issue) that is mandated as part of a formal agreement between the two. Supporters Direct believes that this is a function that can be carried out most suitably through a supporters' trust, and has put together a paper explaining how it could work.

Case Study (would seem to be something that would be sustainable for Rangers):

Arsenal Supporters’ Trust (AST)

AST has developed its links with the club over the years as an organisation that represents the views of supporters on ownership and business strategy issues. The AST seeks to act as a critical friend to the club, scrutinising operations and commenting on key issues in a constructive manner.

On occasions they have been able to offer remedies to issues faced by the club and their independent view is often welcomed. The relationship is best demonstrated by the creation of Arsenal Fanshare where the club and the AST worked closely together.

Essentially, AST has demonstrated its relevance and offered input to the club, although it should be acknowledged that Arsenal FC are perceived as one of the country’s more progressive clubs and thus more amenable to the development these relationships. The engagement of most relevance to the paper is their regular dialogue with the club, which includes:

• There are currently two to four general catch ups a year with the club CEO with all areas of the club’s operations on the agenda

• AST has specific briefings on financial developments at which the clubs report and accounts are discussed and explained

• Arsenal FC holds an end of season open meeting Q&A with AST members and shareholders/other supporters

• AST has occasional meetings with presentations from senior members of Arsenal’s executive team such as marketing, medical and communications

Notice how this is highlighted by SD as a model and FO is not mentioned. 

I have never said it was their sole objective. However I did highlight your assertion that it was their ideal. I am certainly not against supporters being kept informed and having access to management. I do not think they should have control. You seem to think we should go down the Arsenal route. 2 Cup wins and 2 Charity Shield wins in the last 10 years is hardly a successful side in my book.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

On 08/04/2017 at 6:54 PM, Corky True Legend said:

The aims of SD are FO. Read their website. It is like saying you support Jeremy Corbyn but do not support Hamas if you support Sd but do not want FO.

 

3 minutes ago, Corky True Legend said:

I have never said it was their sole objective. However I did highlight your assertion that it was their ideal. I am certainly not against supporters being kept informed and having access to management. I do not think they should have control. You seem to think we should go down the Arsenal route. 2 Cup wins and 2 Charity Shield wins in the last 10 years is hardly a successful side in my book.

That's what you said and I have shown that FO isn't the only model supported by SD. You do fully understand the meaning of 'an ideal' don't you?

Are you, seriously, unable to understand the difference between a model for supporter engagement and the success of a club on the field? That is just laughable, you do realise that at no point have I said lets go down the Arsenal route on the field. The two things are entirely unrelated and if you really can't see that then you are beyond any help. I guess you've at least moved from thinking I likened Rangers to Exeter City or Chester FC!

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

1 hour ago, RFC Eagle said:

 

That's what you said and I have shown that FO isn't the only model supported by SD. You do fully understand the meaning of 'an ideal' don't you?

Are you, seriously, unable to understand the difference between a model for supporter engagement and the success of a club on the field? That is just laughable, you do realise that at no point have I said lets go down the Arsenal route on the field. The two things are entirely unrelated and if you really can't see that then you are beyond any help. I guess you've at least moved from thinking I likened Rangers to Exeter City or Chester FC!

If you read the first post you quoted, nowhere do I say "solely". St Mirren were a Premier League team not so long ago, now, since SD got involved, they are languishing near the bottom of the Championship. Motherwell are in a similar situation. You probably think this is a coincidence, I don't. Prove to me otherwise.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

1 minute ago, Corky True Legend said:

If you read the first post you quoted, nowhere do I say "solely". St Mirren were a Premier League team not so long ago, now, since SD got involved, they are languishing near the bottom of the Championship. Motherwell are in a similar situation. You probably think this is a coincidence, I don't. Prove to me otherwise.

AFC Wimbledon and Swansea City prove you wrong as far as SD involved Fans Groups are concerned, there are numerous others that have enjoyed greater success after SD fan group involvment. Arsenal had an SD affiliated fans group in 2003/4. You really aren't doing very well with your research are you.

I've not even advocated FO for Rangers, just a Fans Group that has influence at the highest level of the club so that fans have a say in their club, which has no relevance to either St. Mirren or Motherwells situations. You seem to completely ignore whats being said to make some bizarre and unsustainable point that has repeatedly failed to be backed by anything outside your own imagination.

Just to humour you:

St. Mirren were on the slide before SD got involved (only 8 months since the takeover was completed) and so were Motherwell.(shorter time frame).

Motherwell lost £2.4 million in the 5 years before the supporter takeover. St. Mirren had been for sale since 2009. Are you still saying that the current positions are entirely due to SD and not the result of mismanagement in preceding seasons? I think you have issues with reality or are you just thrashing around desperately trying to sustain your ridiculous premise. 

As for 'solely', your Corbyn/Hamas nonsense was exactly the definition of 'solely' (the SD and FO connection being your nonsensical premise) with the if you support SD then you ' must want FO', thats a definitive statement. 

You even talk about 'having control' when I have repeatedly said its influence. There is, again, a crucial difference between the two words. Maybe you'll get it eventually but I wont hold my breath.

 

[Sweetheart 8,458]

Overdue https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC476150

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

49 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

AFC Wimbledon and Swansea City prove you wrong as far as SD involved Fans Groups are concerned, there are numerous others that have enjoyed greater success after SD fan group involvment. Arsenal had an SD affiliated fans group in 2003/4. You really aren't doing very well with your research are you.

I've not even advocated FO for Rangers, just a Fans Group that has influence at the highest level of the club so that fans have a say in their club, which has no relevance to either St. Mirren or Motherwells situations. You seem to completely ignore whats being said to make some bizarre and unsustainable point that has repeatedly failed to be backed by anything outside your own imagination.

Just to humour you:

St. Mirren were on the slide before SD got involved (only 8 months since the takeover was completed) and so were Motherwell.(shorter time frame).

Motherwell lost £2.4 million in the 5 years before the supporter takeover. St. Mirren had been for sale since 2009. Are you still saying that the current positions are entirely due to SD and not the result of mismanagement in preceding seasons? I think you have issues with reality or are you just thrashing around desperately trying to sustain your ridiculous premise. 

As for 'solely', your Corbyn/Hamas nonsense was exactly the definition of 'solely' (the SD and FO connection being your nonsensical premise) with the if you support SD then you ' must want FO', thats a definitive statement. 

You even talk about 'having control' when I have repeatedly said its influence. There is, again, a crucial difference between the two words. Maybe you'll get it eventually but I wont hold my breath.

 

What numerous others in Scotland? Remember we don't get England's level of TV money so don't bother quoting English examples. That reeks of clutching at straws to justify your position.

[rbr 364]

45 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

Overdue https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC476150

William Cowie stated that they have been signed off and return has been made .

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

4 hours ago, Corky True Legend said:

What numerous others in Scotland? Remember we don't get England's level of TV money so don't bother quoting English examples. That reeks of clutching at straws to justify your position.

You think AFC Wimbledon get significant tv funds? You are an utter crackpot.

You know when fans took over at Swansea they were in the bottom tier? You think their tv revenue was huge at that point? Its utterly hilarious that you can't sustain a single argument and are writhing around trying to find a way to make your irrelevant comparisons look even vaguely rational.

In Scotland Dunfermline were in administration when bought by Pars United and subsequently were promoted to the Championship. If the fans hadn't stepped in the club wouldn't exist. Hearts haven't collapsed with an SD affiliated fans group. 

But again I have never advocated FO as a model for Rangers (i.e. 50%+1 share or greater) so even those cases are relevant to the point that was originally being made.

You obviously see SD as some sort of Anti-Christ and will try any way to ignore the positive effect that their work has had in Scotland (and the rest of the UK). The fact is there are clubs that would not exist without SD affiliated fan groups.

Rangers need a single credible fans group which can represent the core fanbase (RSCs and ST holders). Using SDs governance models, to their fullest, would have prevented the current debacle and enabled a more effective voice for fans. What we have now is the worst of all options.

 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just to point out once again RF and now 1872, have never at anytime claimed to be about fan ownership. 

I know it's a bit of a cunt for those arguing we don't need an organisation like 1872, but that's the facts.