Houston hits back

[ianferguson 2,619]

4 minutes ago, bombaybadboy08 said:

Hello ianferguson,

Just out a staff meeting and we feel it would be best for everyone if Follow Follow was your permanent posting home, well, not permanent, but for good. 

Will let you say your cheerios to everyone then bid you farewell.

God speed.

I'd you've got God on your side I'd be happy to leave ?.

[ianferguson 2,619]

8 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

I'm voicing an opinion on my experience on FF. There is no 'agenda' other than giving an opinion. You, clearly, don't get the difference between an agenda and an opinion. What outcome do you think I seek with this supposed agenda? 

I joined FF (before I was aware of RM) with no pre-conceptions. My experience on it (and personally interacting with key figures associated with it) led me to form an opinion, without any help from anyone. I don't want anyone banned from here or for FF to disappear I merely give my opinion about it.

My opinion on CH, again, has been formed from personal experience. My agenda there is clear, my aim would be to remove him from any involvement in any aspect of Rangers or any fans group.

That sums up where opinion and agenda diverge.

?"My agenda is clear " you can't make this up,thank you my vindication is complete. 

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just now, ianferguson said:

?"My agenda is clear " you can't make this up,thank you my vindication is complete. 

You really are 'making it up'.

My personal agenda with CH is clear. I have no agenda with FF just an opinion. Try learning about paragraphs and grammatical structure and you will fully understand what I posted.

My agenda with CH is a personal one (with extremely personal reasons for it). It has nothing whatsoever to do with my being on RM.

That you seem unable to grasp anything that has been said is more telling of your 'agenda' than anything.

 

[BridgeIsBlue 66,595]

Craig Houston is a grass 

Is a grass

He sliced it,he diced it

He put it in a wok

Craig Houston is a grass

Is a grass

[ianferguson 2,619]

21 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

You really are 'making it up'.

My personal agenda with CH is clear. I have no agenda with FF just an opinion. Try learning about paragraphs and grammatical structure and you will fully understand what I posted.

My agenda with CH is a personal one (with extremely personal reasons for it). It has nothing whatsoever to do with my being on RM.

That you seem unable to grasp anything that has been said is more telling of your 'agenda' than anything.

 

 ?. Ffs stop shouting about your agendas, it makes you look silly.

"My personal agenda with CH is clear" comedy gold , you could have saved me a lot of ink.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just now, ianferguson said:

 ?. Ffs stop shouting about your agendas, it makes you look silly.

"My personal agenda with CH is clear" comedy gold , you could have saved me a lot of ink.

You are the one looking silly, clownshoe.

You said my 'agenda' was about FF. Wrong.

You said RM is populated by 'sheep'. Wrong.

You, clearly, have issues with comprehension. I have an opinion about FF from personal experience.

My (and my late wifes) personal experience of CH lead me to want him to have no part in Rangers or any Rangers fan group. 

Now try reading it very slowly and you will understand that nothing there supports the assertions you have claimed. Which are (just to be clear):

1. My opinion on CH was formed because of RM.

2. I have an agenda regarding FF.

And, if I was 'shouting' I'd be DOING THIS.

Finally, unless you are printing what you are posting you aren't using ink (crayon would probably be nearer the mark with you).

[ianferguson 2,619]

11 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

You are the one looking silly, clownshoe.

You said my 'agenda' was about FF. Wrong.

You said RM is populated by 'sheep'. Wrong.

You, clearly, have issues with comprehension. I have an opinion about FF from personal experience.

My (and my late wifes) personal experience of CH lead me to want him to have no part in Rangers or any Rangers fan group. 

Now try reading it very slowly and you will understand that nothing there supports the assertions you have claimed. Which are (just to be clear):

1. My opinion on CH was formed because of RM.

2. I have an agenda regarding FF.

And, if I was 'shouting' I'd be DOING THIS.

Finally, unless you are printing what you are posting you aren't using ink (crayon would probably be nearer the mark with you).

My side's are splitting here?, you'll need to stop or see a councillor. Stop the abuse too it's usually a sign of losing the argument. With regards to the ink ffs I give up.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

2 hours ago, sonowilliam1 said:

C'mon admit it that last comment from me hurt you,Craig Houston goes through 100 times plus,get of the lads back ffsl

Hurt me ffs.  You have to do massively better than that you absolute throbber.

As I said before he reaps what he sows. 

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

40 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

My side's are splitting here?, you'll need to stop or see a councillor. Stop the abuse too it's usually a sign of losing the argument. With regards to the ink ffs I give up.

Is that a local councillor?  

It must have been predictive texting its a real pain at times.But then it can be witheringly accurate. Bye Bye.

[The Beast 9,182]

5 hours ago, ianferguson said:

My point is the difference in opinion specifically between RM and FF. Can't compare these forums to Twitter and Facebook because they are both more transparent,objective and give people the right of reply in a lot of cases. Stand by my point that RM  is unique in it's condemnation of Houston being practically unanimous. 

Well by your logic FF is also unique in not unanimously condemning Houston since you're only comparing the two.

[jintybear 8,536]

6 hours ago, Sweetheart said:

Fury?

My thoughts exactly 

[glasgowrangersno1 468]

I've not got a strong opinion on Craig Houston either way, don't know enough about him, but the observation I would make is:

A certain noisy section of this forum seem to have a hatred of any Rangers fan who is in the public eye.

The same noisy section claim RM is free for 'debate' yet they are the ones who attempt to shout down and mud sling at anyone who has a different opinion from them. I remember joining this forum around the time Ashley had control and King wanted control and was told to fuck off amongst other things for giving my opinion.

Reading through this thread I see it hasn't changed a huge amount since then.

[ianferguson 2,619]

40 minutes ago, The Beast said:

Well by your logic FF is also unique in not unanimously condemning Houston since you're only comparing the two.

Too clever for me m8.

[Smile 26,600]

5 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Too clever for me m8.

Gersnet have a good piece on him there if you're a member, tackles the actual statement itself and him as a whole.

[dougie76 15,356]

9 hours ago, piperpete said:

Welcome to the site, dont ever mantion you have a speech IMpediment as the cruel kants tag you with capital I's.iTs mental IT make your posts IN some cases with more capital letters than normal

?

[Malvern 11,329]

8 hours ago, sonowilliam1 said:

Okay well in your opinion why are they crazy ?

 

I could easily say the same about yours,you have so far not substantiated anything other than cat calling like a wummen would do.You're offering nothing,again i'll try - Why the hatred for Craig Houston ? There's more hatred on here for one of our own than one for who came in and switched off the lights and left us in a state of mocking from the filth ? 

That rat is not one of us, he is a chancer and should be chased from the club. Uncle fester provides nothing of substance that is not paid for by someone else behind the scenes,

[Malvern 11,329]

30 minutes ago, Smile said:

Gersnet have a good piece on him there if you're a member, tackles the actual statement itself and him as a whole.

Copy and post it here mate, I am sure it is not copy righted.

[Smile 26,600]

4 hours ago, Malvern said:

Copy and post it here mate, I am sure it is not copy righted.

Posted by Bluedell on Gersnet. full thread here http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?84792-Craig-Houston-statement

The main reason for the noise online appears to have started when three directors resigned from club 1872 and decided to publish a blog on the subject. I have never defended myself to these allegations as I've been unable to online and because of the nature of the online community who demand instant news, updates and replies to their questions, when someone is unable to answer any slurs then they are found guilty by assumption. I am happy to now give my side of a story that seems to have been accepted by some with only 50% of the parties involved having a say. 

I did apply for the role as Supporters Liaison Officer at our club and whenever asked I gave a straight and honest answer to anyone who enquired. If asked before I submitted my application I would answer saying I hadn't yet applied but was considering it and I would probably be applying and when asked after submitting my application a straight yes was my reply to anyone who quizzed me on the situation. 

I was phoned twice by two different club 1872 directors on two separate occasions and asked if I had applied for the role. On the first occasion I hadn't yet submitted my application but confirmed to the director that I would be submitting it within a day or two. The upcoming meeting with Stewart Robertson was discussed and we both agreed that if I attended the meeting and didn't give Stewart a grilling on behalf of our members some may consider this a disservice and I decided that I shouldn't attend the meeting and allow others who hadn't applied for the role the opportunity to ask questions on our members behalf. I received several phone calls from members who were unhappy I wasn't at this meeting as they felt I would have been more than suitable to ask questions of the club on behalf of members and the wider Rangers fanbase. I am convinced I done the right thing under the circumstance.

It seems strange to me that Craig himself decided whether he would or would not attend a meeting with the club. This would normally be a Board decision. I have to wonder why several members knew that he was not going to attend. I'd have expected that the list of attendees would be confidential until after the meeting. Who told these members and why weren't all members informed?

There is a clear conflict of interest here, and the person who was to give Stewart Robertson a grilling should not be someone who is about to apply for a job with the club.

Craig still does not acknowledge that there is an issue and still believes that he did the right thing even though it resulted in 3 resignations. It's disappointing that he still can't acknowledge what he did was incorrect and therefore there could potentially be similar problems in the future.
 

The second call I received was on the morning of a Police Scotland planning meeting for the fixture against Celtic a few days later and this time when asked I confirmed that I had now applied for the role but had received no further correspondence. This second director felt I should inform the board of my application. Having already checked the legal position that stated I was duty bound to notify club 1872 only if I was successful in securing the role, I informed this second director that I was still considering what to do and my feeling at that point was I would notify the board even in the event of me being shortlisted and offered an interview. I felt this was a fair middle ground and informed the second director that I was still considering when to inform the board properly but would take his opinions and notify him of my final decision on when to notify the board. I had always publicly stated that for club 1872 to remain independent then no employee or agent of the club should serve on the board of Club 1872 and when asked directly at the election hustings I confirmed that if I should ever be fortunate enough to be offered a job at Ibrox I would stand down immediately from my post. I stand by that statement.

Again Craig should have told the rest of the Board as soon as he applied for the position to avoid conflicts of interest. The "legal" get-out that he's using isn't that relevant. It's either a conflict of interest or it's not.
 

That evening I called back the second director and informed him that I felt my stance was fair and I would notify the board if I was to receive an interview. Once I notified him of my stance his position changed and he declared that by going to the meeting earlier that day I had somehow abused my position in an attempt to secure the job at the club. He felt I had potential harmed club 1872 by doing so. I refuted the allegation on the grounds that I had been attending these meetings for almost a year and the club were well aware of my attendance and I'm positive if there was any issues with me attending then they wouldn't have invited me to attend. The email inviting me was directed to me personally and not part of a group discussion and it has been suggested I wasn't actually invited at all but the email remains in my phone and I'm happy to show it to anyone who desires clarity on that situation.

That's concerning. Surely a C1872 director should be acting as a C1872 director in all dealing with the club, and if he feels he can attend meetings in a personal basis when there are C1872 directors also attending then he should stand down.

The claim that by attending a meeting that may or may not have club officials in attendance who may or may not be involved in the recruitment process would somehow influence their decision making process was not only a slight on my character but even more so on them.The fact that there was over 90 applications submitted at this time and I hadn't been informed if I even had an interview made the point even less valid. I think a more important influence could have been my actions over the last four years that had put me in direct contact with the same people even before my involvement with club 1872 but to suggest even this would have influenced them would question their integrity more than mine.

Those in the club didn't have a conflict of interest. Only Craig did
 

It is also prudent that members are aware that during this conversation by two participants with different opinions, at no time was there either any argument nor anything other than respectful discussion. I did state that my opinion was of no different value than his and either of us could be wrong but if his opinion was shared by the board I would resign on that basis. I thought that he could take his opinion up with the rest of the board by telephone, email or face to face and if they agreed with him I would respectfully resign. The following day three directors resigned and that was followed up with a public blog. This surprised me and I feel they took the wrong course of action and this could have been remedied in an easier, more constructive manner notwithstanding the fact that if I had done something as bad as suggested I wouldn't have had the opportunity to resign as such behaviour would have seen me removed if indeed it was as serious as made out. Notes from the board meeting on the 6th of February actually state the boards position on employees of Rangers being on the board of club 1872. The board felt the issue should be put to members and considering if my opinion was shared by the three directors who left then our board would have easily passed the motion that employees shouldn't serve yet they have reacted in such a way to a board member simply applying for a job seems at odds with their obvious position on the subject at this board meeting.

The whole board should have been informed of the issue immediately and it should have been discussed then, which may have prevented the fall-out.
 

THE BLUE POUND. 

It has been claimed that ...

THE SENSORY ROOM FUND RAISING

At Monday's launch John Brown declared that £46k was raised by fans and I had been involved in the raising of these funds....

I WENT TO BARCELONA TO WATCH CELTIC

This is one of the oldest and most outrageous claims I've dealt with....

USING ALTER EGOS TO POST ONLINE

I can confirm that I have never used false profiles....

These are just a sample of the things that appear online and no doubt because I've not discussed some others then that in its self will be enough for some to claim the others must be true such is the madness of social media.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with C1872 and why Craig felt it necessary to discuss personal business at a C1872 meeting.

 

Posted by Rbr

This whole episode has become about Craig Houston , whilst he is part of the issue the bigger picture seems to have been completely missed by the majority .

Craig Houston had every right to apply for the job he did , that neither he nor 3 other club1872 board members could see what the vast majority of us could see if the most worrying aspect .
That the incidents which also preceded this occurrence , have been banished from the minds of the same 3 current board members is almost alarming .

CH had been talked to on several different occasions by both JB and AW regards his attitude to the female members of the board and Christine Somerville , something that both gentlemen funnily enough failed to disclose at the club1862 meeting even after being asked .CH was also told that this was never a resignation matter prior to his decision as to whether to attend or not , yet he uses the resignation line again and again despite being told to the contrary .

The sabbatical that then wasn't a sabbatical nor was it a leave of absence , but just a two month absence that wasn't really an absence still hadn't been fully disclosed to anyone's satisfaction .

Then we have James Blair , the guy who stated at the club1872 meeting , " please don't quote me on the contents of the phone conversations two weeks ago as I don't have a very good memory and I get confused " a lawyer who has a very loose definition of a C of I and who stated when asked by myself at the hustings what he was going to bring to club1872 , " the first thing I'm going to do is write a code of conduct for the directors " and how many words has he written on this code so far , zero , nada , zilch , none .

The problem is not Craig Houston , but he is part of the problem , are the 3 resignees blameless , no of course not , I believe they were hasty in their actions and should have had it out at a board meeting , however I fully understand their frustrations and share those frustrations .

I fully believe their actions were fully in line with club 1872s core principals , and I fully support them in the actions they took , what happens next is anyone's guess , the current board will limp on hoping to get to Sept and fresh elections , by which time JB will no longer be standing and can slink off into the long grass .

As an aside it is also worth noting that a Twitter profile appeared the day after the resignations which had access to information only current board members of club 1872 could know ,funny that .

[Getstiffed 8,863]

Certain member doing a great job of derailing the thread.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

58 minutes ago, glasgowrangersno1 said:

I've not got a strong opinion on Craig Houston either way, don't know enough about him, but the observation I would make is:

A certain noisy section of this forum seem to have a hatred of any Rangers fan who is in the public eye.

The same noisy section claim RM is free for 'debate' yet they are the ones who attempt to shout down and mud sling at anyone who has a different opinion from them. I remember joining this forum around the time Ashley had control and King wanted control and was told to fuck off amongst other things for giving my opinion.

Reading through this thread I see it hasn't changed a huge amount since then.

You have an admin on this very thread who could ban anyone he doesn't agree with his opinion of CH.

Waiting for the bans....any day now....

[dougie76 15,356]

5 hours ago, ianferguson said:

I read the posts on his epic speech and they were virtually all sympathetic ,in stark contrast to RM, that good enough for you ?. Any doubts you could do the same smart arse, it's open to anyone.

Aye, and you do know why it seems like that?

 

[Sweetheart 8,458]

41 minutes ago, Smile said:

Gersnet have a good piece on him there if you're a member, tackles the actual statement itself and him as a whole.

Agreed, I'm beginning to wonder why there is an interest as to how RM is being run, is there some sort of survey going on? 

[Smile 26,600]

Just now, Sweetheart said:

Agreed, I'm beginning to wonder why there is an interest as to how RM is being run, is there some sort of survey going on? 

I think they are trying to change the thread topic and make it more a forum v forum argument rather than pointing out Craig Houston  short comings.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

6 hours ago, ianferguson said:

I read the posts on his epic speech and they were virtually all sympathetic ,in stark contrast to RM, that good enough for you ?. Any doubts you could do the same smart arse, it's open to anyone.

And no-one went after any dissenting voices and everyone went holding hands skipping off into the sunset

[thebooler 4,509]

7 hours ago, ianferguson said:

I'd be happy if there were more like you ,my point is that you're  in a tiny minority on RM .

But we can't all be the same mate. There would be no point in having forums.

The point I'm making is, because the majority on here use string language when discussing Craig, I don't. And I'm allowed to have that opinion.

If I posted the exact same "mild" post on ££ I'd be banned.