Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 574
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Rangers men don't grass on their own. He's a self important bald banger. 

Haven't read this thread, just a couple of the last pages, then had a quick look of FF. Lots on FF saying 'just had a look on RM and add expletive here' etc. My question to those people is t

Yer a grass, you forgot to address that.

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Smile said:

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.

Probably, it's silly really doing that. We're all branches on the same tree, we grow in different directions, but our roots keep us all together as a Rangers family.

Smile and Malvern like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ianferguson said:

Ffs you still haven't got the point. Why is Houston hated on one Rangers forum and respected on another ? I've not mentioned once on this thread anything personal about Houston, my interest is only how the divide reflects on both forums. Why is he vilified for grassing on RM and not on FF?.

The posts on ff are chopped mate, and on most occasions, the poster banned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ianferguson said:

Ffs you still haven't got the point. Why is Houston hated on one Rangers forum and respected on another ? I've not mentioned once on this thread anything personal about Houston, my interest is only how the divide reflects on both forums. Why is he vilified for grassing on RM and not on FF?.

Over the years I have come to form the opinion that FF operates to an agenda (I suppose by that I mean those that run FF) what the agenda/end goal is I do not know however they want there to be favourable opinion towards certain individuals.

My reasoning for thinking that is I have seen (and experienced to an extent) posters speak of their posts being removed (on FF) and bans applied when questioning certain people (censorship).  Albeit there may be a majority opinion on RM and at times you may get it tight when differing I can never once recall anyone stating their post or opinion was removed. 

What I am trying to say is, you are right, there is a majority opinion on here however there is no collective agenda influenced by those who can.  If I put up a thread just now listing all the reasons FF is great, Houston is great and RM is shit that thread will not be chopped, would the flip side of that apply on FF?  

There is little surprise that a collective majority opinion is formed, it happens, those with strong opinions and able to make a good case will be heard and they will influence.   Where it becomes an issue is when only they are allowed to be heard.

I do have to admit its been years since I was on FF, so my thoughts may be dated and fairly shot down however that was the opinion I formed and it has stuck.  Rambled on a bit there and not directly answered your question however it is my opinion on the difference between the sites and my case for why the majority opinion on RM is arrived at in a more credible manner.

 

ianferguson and reallyruff like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

It's not. I joined up and was immediately banned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Smile said:

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 .

That's an excellent post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, markem said:

Over the years I have come to form the opinion that FF operates to an agenda (I suppose by that I mean those that run FF) what the agenda/end goal is I do not know however they want there to be favourable opinion towards certain individuals.

My reasoning for thinking that is I have seen (and experienced to an extent) posters speak of their posts being removed (on FF) and bans applied when questioning certain people (censorship).  Albeit there may be a majority opinion on RM and at times you may get it tight when differing I can never once recall anyone stating their post or opinion was removed. 

What I am trying to say is, you are right, there is a majority opinion on here however there is no collective agenda influenced by those who can.  If I put up a thread just now listing all the reasons FF is great, Houston is great and RM is shit that thread will not be chopped, would the flip side of that apply on FF?  

There is little surprise that a collective majority opinion is formed, it happens, those with strong opinions and able to make a good case will be heard and they will influence.   Where it becomes an issue is when only they are allowed to be heard.

I do have to admit its been years since I was on FF, so my thoughts may be dated and fairly shot down however that was the opinion I formed and it has stuck.  Rambled on a bit there and not directly answered your question however it is my opinion on the difference between the sites and my case for why the majority opinion on RM is arrived at in a more credible manner.

 

Put your mind at rest you did not ramble and I followed your train of thought without issue.

I am a lucky man, I found this site first as I looked up on google "crazy drunk and drugged up internet forum admin who is a taxi driver" and found Gogzy here so have been here ever since.

markem and Carsons Dog like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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 realise how contradictory that sounds? Part of being a forum that's free to debate should include a "noisy section" being able to shout - or shouldn't that be allowed? 

 

RFC Eagle likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

You realise how contradictory that sounds? Part of being a forum that's free to debate should include a "noisy section" being able to shout - or shouldn't that be allowed? 

 

Not contradictory at all.

Allowed to debate and give opinions but as soon as certain people don't like the point you make they result to name calling and abuse. Pathetic really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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

I asked this previously, still waiting.

 

What does Dave King bring to Rangers?   What did Craig Houston do for Rangers?   You tell me why I should like either of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...