Club 1872 Director's Resignation

jweebear said:
I"m not cancelling my DD, but will stay and help C1872 to get where we want to be, in the boardroom. the Broonue4bears was an oppertunity to help get the scum out of the family stand, c1872 were noticeable by their body swerving the issue.
Click to expand...

These are the kinds of things I struggle a bit with. Who "are" Club1872? I would assume it would be defined as the membership?

Did C1872 poll members on B4B and the overall membership wasn't particularly bothered?

Or did specific individuals higher up in the organisation decide it wasn't something they were really bothered about?

Genuine question.
 
If Mully’s point about Laura Fawkes and transparency is true, it should be her and not the OP that is tendering their resignation.

The board haven’t been close transparent and their choice of communication through Level 5 PR is a farce.

There are clearly deeper issues within club1872 - I’m a member and would like to see more of a presence from them. C1872 just now seem very lathargic, they need to realise it’s okay to challenge people you’re ‘friendly’ with, i.e. the board.

Mully - I wish you well with your health and hope you’re better soon!
 
George Goudie said:
Right.


Who's with me.


Who would like Papasmurf to get on that board and sort Club1872 out.


He's the man. I've come to know him well through working on the BROOMIE4BEARS initiative and he is perfect for the post.

This infighting needs to stop right here.
Click to expand...

The woman would bully him seen he’s a short arse
 
songsofglory said:
I'd far rather have lads from supporters busses, people who were on the pitch fighting the Hibs scum, the UB etc challenging the board than Club 1872. At least there's a bit of fight in them.

We seem to have almost a class war in our support. The normal fans, people who travel to every game home and away don't get their voices heard, yet fans who can afford it seem to get on these types of boards.
Click to expand...
It's always been a them and us thing
 
I think the issue is people want C1872 to be many things - a major shareholder in the club, enough to ensure nothing like Whyte happens again; A supporters organisation liasing with the club; A lobby group to hold the club to account and agitate when things need said. Almost like Rangers First, the RSA and the RST used to be....

Sadly, I don’t think it’s possible to do all those as people would want. Start to agitate or have a go at the board and you lose the goodwill you need to effectively do the second objective. Conversely, you will be less likely to lobby strongly when in the next telephone call you want the board to do something for you..
 
Football trusts and similar supporter representation groups still have a very long way to go in British football, particularly within the Rangers support.

What purpose do people want Club 1872 to serve? To be a militant organisation that shouts loudly? To be a representative organisation that has a voice at board level? The 2 aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but its a fine balancing act. Does it help the membership for Club 1872 to become board patsies? No. Does it help for them to become so disliked within the Rangers boardroom that the club stops talking to them? No.

Sometimes members of fans groups need to accept that you need to build a working relationship with the people who own and run the football club. Sometimes there's a need for commercial confidentiality. Its not ideal and in a perfect world there would be complete transparency and full disclosure from club to fans group to membership. In the real world that simply can't happen.

In my opinion Club 1872 exist to serve 2 roles - act as a vehicle for increasing fan ownership through collective share purchasing and act to represent the interests of the membership. The former is relatively straight forward. The latter relies on the membership having faith in it's elected office bearers and representatives and those people acting with integrity. Sometimes that falls short. Either the membership lose faith in the people elected to represent them or the office bearers become a little too cozy with the ownership group and senior management that they're trying to hold to account. If thats the case then the solution is clear - stand for office as an alternative and try to act in a way that you believe the previous reps didn't until such time as somebody loses faith in you and challenges your actions on behalf of the organisation.

The Rangers support has been distrusting of supporters representation for approaching 18 years now. The RST had it's critics. It had those within the organisation who wanted to go in a different direction. Unfortunately the membership didn't react in the correct way - proper debate and, if necessary, an election of new board members/reps to step up and take that work on. Fans sniped. Fans argued. Fans eventually ensured that the trust became marginalised as it was seen as a dysfunctional and unimportant group from those on the outside looking in. The same may well happen to Club 1872 and if it does then I'd place as big part of the blame on the membership of the organisation as on those running it.

These kind of groups only work with an engaged membership who are active. Club 1872 is only ever going to be as strong as it's membership. If members expect Club 1872 reps/board members to do all the work for them then it's doomed to fail. If the membership can't accept that a degree of confidentiality is needed in order to build the kind of constructive relationships that will see the group actually listened to within the club's senior management and ownership group then its on a one way trip to becoming a joke figure. Similarly if there is a creeping notion amongst some board members/reps that there's a chance to have a cozy relationship with the board at the expense of being an effective voice for the membership then its for the members to stand up and make their voices heard. In my entire time as a member of the RST I attended almost every AGM. The first meeting I went to was at a packed Partick borough hall. As time went on those meetings became smaller and smaller - first it was a packed Wee Rangers Club but as the years passed that became a busy WRC and then a half-empty WRC. Eventually it became a very quiet WRC with a handful of people from an organisation with a membership that at one point numbered in the thousands.

If fans want effective representation then it's time to buy into a proper fans group. If that's Club 1872 then so be it. The membership needs to become more active. It needs to hold it's board members and reps to account. Paying to be a member of Club 1872 does nothing unless you also give it your time and effort. The one thing that's guaranteed to end the group isn't the odd disagreement between board members, even if it leads to public spats and resignations like this. The one thing that will kill off meaningful supporter representation is apathy from the support at large and, in particular, the membership.

It's your group. They represent you. You need to make your voice heard.
 
My support of both Rangers and Club 1872 will continue. However, both seem to have difficulty in getting over to their supporters what is happening. Stewart Robertson seem to be a decent and hardworking bloke but fails as an effective communicator. While I don’t know them, I feel sure that those at club 1872 are also decent and hardworking. Outside of their pleas as for additional financial support, there just seems to be insufficient communications to convince existing their members that the financial support, which is already being given, is being used meaningfully.
 
I thought club1872 was the fans voice on the board?I always presumed that was their role?Maybe way off but don’t they as shareholders and fans not represent both?Ive never joined as I didn’t fancy it to be honest.
 
Got to say that after buying shares and contributing to the RST and then Club 1872, I'm none the wiser as to what we are actually achieving. Maybe I'm not taking enough detailed notice but as usual we seem to have factional warfare.
 
BrigtonBlue said:
Good luck to Chris and if The Rangers pay him so be it.

Not many people shout from the rooftop who pays them or indeed what they get paid
Click to expand...

This is so wrong mate. C1872 are the secret nd largest shareholder, they have no seat on the board and part of their remit is to hold the club board accountable. Having a club paid employee doing the lions share of the day to day running of C1872 is as clear a conflict of interest as you can get.

Chris Graham is a good man who works hard for the club and is clearly passionate. He also is in no position to work for C1872 while being paid to do so by the club, it is an absolute farce and he needs to be removed immediately in order to preserve the remaining integrity of C1872.


All of that is assuming the OP is accurate, obviously.
 
MacaroniPie said:
This is a case of toys out of the pram by the OP.

Rambling personal attacks that will only damage the cause of fan ownership, and for what? To make himself feel better because he didn't get his own way. Didn't like women standing up to him.

Disagreements happen and it's a shame he is ill and feels unable to continue, but that is no excuse for such a petty, mean spirited and destructive post.

Giving a one sided account of private conversations is a shoddy thing to do.

He should be ashamed of himself.
I hope he gets wsell soon.
Click to expand...
At least we know who the OP is (or we can identify him easily) and he gave a full account of what his issues were. Who are you I wonder?
You've joined yesterday for the sole purpose of posting on this board and all you've contributed is a personal attack. And since you seem to have intimate knowledge/opinions of certain events:
1- "Didn't like women standing up to him" ... Why would you jump to that conclusion? That's not the impression I got from reading his post. Far from it. Sounds more like a personal opinion that someone holds who knows him would make because they think it's true or to play the sex card to defend themselves.
2- "one sided account of private conversations" ... Nothing in his post alludes to private conversations so why would you say that unless you know something we don't? Unless you're refering to his conversation with Euan McFarlane? And there's nothing "shoddy" about revealing that unless you are Euan himself or someone involved right?

You accuse the OP of rambling personal attacks and that he should be ashamed of himself, yet you join up just to attack him in a shameful manner. Bizarre.

So, excuse me for feeling that you are personally involved in this and the fact that you haven't even attempted to answer the OP's clear accusations against the individuals (you?), instead preferring to resort to attacking his character and honesty stinks of someone on the defensive. Why would that be?

Now I'm a complete neutral in all of this except of course wanting the best for the club as every average fan does. But two things really jumped out of this post to me and many others. 1. Chris Graham being paid to advise C1872. A strange set up don't you think? & 2. the OP being prevented from putting forward valid and crucial opinions of fans and members to the Rangers board ... by none other than a fellow director? If this is so, then perhaps some people need reminded exactly who's money and shares they are responsible for. Wouldn't you agree? It appears not, as none of this seems to concern you? Only character assassination seems to be your goal. Why?

And if, as I suspect, you are indeed one of the people involved, then the fact that your imagination can't stretch further than the meal on the plate under your nose when trying to come up with a 'Rangers themed' username, tells me everything I need to know about the calibre of individual who is 'running' the organisation. By the way, does anyone know if Laura, Joanne or Euan are vegetarian? Just a thought ....

MacaroniPie said:
We need more high calibre and hard working candidates to complement the existing directors in future.
Click to expand...

Not replace them, no? Is that not an option? Hmmm... I rest my case.
 
This why fan ownership will never work at Rangers too many egos chasing a blazer.

Just a wee off point - How the hell can Chris Graham be involved in Club 1872 considering why he left the RIFC board? (regardless if it was an ill timed joke from years before or not)

Just seems the same old names crop up time after time.

Donated very briefly to Club 1872 but started putting my money into the RFC Lotto instead - I would advise others to do the same who are saying they are going to stop their DDs.
 
SC81 said:
That's certainly something I would like to do. I have just done a quick google search to try and find out how to buy shares in Rangers. The club website says JP Jenkins is the trading platform. Do I just register with them and buy shares through them?
Click to expand...

Contact the SLO he will forward you to the correct person.
 
Club 1872 is a shambles and is totally toothless when it comes to challenging the current regime.

And it's a disgrace that any monies being paid to Chris Graham out of it's funds.
 
So Chris Graham is paid by the club to run/influence the Club 1872 board.
Is that what has been alleged?

If that is the situation, it's an absolute shambles when they should be holding the club board to account on behalf of the members.
 
Eddie Badabing said:
I want Club1872 to own 25% or above of the available shares.

That's all I care about and the only reason I contribute each month.

I don't care how they do it, I don't care what personalities come and go, there is nothing more important for the Rangers support after the cataclysmic lessons since 2011.

That's it. Every other peripheral matter (like this) is meaningless and in 50 years from now will remain meaningless.

But owning 25% or more of RIFC will be priceless.
Click to expand...

This is also the one and only reason I pay into club1872. 25% shareholding. We cannot go back to the situation where we are at the mercy of some shyster like whyte or Murray
 
Leo_Ger said:
Recent statements have indicated they're happy to be kept in check by the board.

They let King swat them away concerning a board place with some wishy washy bullshit. As the second biggest shareholder at the club they should be demanding a board place as that makes the organisation more deserving of a place than a few current board members.

The organisation is sadly failing the fans who have invested in it.
Click to expand...

Spot on , if this was the second biggest shareholder . And not involved in fan representation , they wouldn’t dare dismiss in such a way , and with the in action of not holding the board accountable , club 1872 is dead in the water .
 
Maximus said:
This is also the one and only reason I pay into club1872. 25% shareholding. We cannot go back to the situation where we are at the mercy of some shyster like whyte or Murray
Click to expand...
That's a fair point and the ultimate goal , less serious issues still need to be addressed though.

That said,I wouldn't be for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
RuchazieBlue said:
FFS my eyes hurt trying to read moronic posts. Some amount of scum follow that smelly liar
Click to expand...
He hates Rangers, Rangers supporters, and he is sympathetic toward child abusers. Of course the beasts will follow him. The beasts are his targeted followers. Spiers is a beast collector.
 
Oh good more fan group upheaval

Club 1872 is failing

7400 members from a support of how many?

Directors that were appointed by default...a lack of interest in even voting by members seen the current crop stay on

Regarded by majority of fans as a waste of time

Now the scramble is on to top up the bank balance before the share issue comes round.


Too many egos, too many people in it for the wrong reasons.
 
bornabluenose said:
That's a fair point and the ultimate goal , less serious issues still need to be addressed though.

That said,I wouldn't be for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

I didn’t vote in favour of having a place on the board because it will tie club1872 board members hands even tighter. Club1872 must be free of Rangers board influence.

25% shareholding. That is all.
 
George Goudie said:
Right.


Who's with me.


Who would like Papasmurf to get on that board and sort Club1872 out.


He's the man. I've come to know him well through working on the BROOMIE4BEARS initiative and he is perfect for the post.

This infighting needs to stop right here.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and if infighting was a sport then Rangers fans would be top of the league!

W.A.T.P.
 
HoboUK said:
On a forum that would argue black was white there sure are a few folk keen to bash C1872 based on an OP that was full of opinion and low on actual facts
Click to expand...
Low on facts? Surely there would have been an answer by now from the others concerned if that was the case.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
These are the kinds of things I struggle a bit with. Who "are" Club1872? I would assume it would be defined as the membership?

Did C1872 poll members on B4B and the overall membership wasn't particularly bothered?

Or did specific individuals higher up in the organisation decide it wasn't something they were really bothered about?

Genuine question.
Click to expand...

Not noticed anyone chip in with input on this. Can anyone who is a member shed light on this?

If PS is suggesting C1872 are effectively sitting on the fence on his Broomie4Bears proposal, were the membership asked their opinion?

If not, then who represented them in reflecting opinion on B4B?
 
ibroxbound said:
Low on facts? Surely there would have been an answer by now from the others concerned if that was the case.
Click to expand...

I'd reckon they've more tho do than run around answering forum posts on Follow Follow. The OP hasn't come back to elaborate either , has he ?

The low on facts point was specifically aimed at the only evidence we have of any of that happening is 1 post from a guy no one here seems to have ever met. That's nowhere near enough to grab the pitchforks yet. I've already stated I believe C1872 does have issues it needs to address its just disappointing seeing so many seemingly gleeful that its having issurs.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
Not noticed anyone chip in with input on this. Can anyone who is a member shed light on this?

If PS is suggesting C1872 are effectively sitting on the fence on his Broomie4Bears proposal, were the membership asked their opinion?

If not, then who represented them in reflecting opinion on B4B?
Click to expand...

As stated above. Previously, myself and PS have been in communication with C1872 and they were prepared to survey the membership to gauge the supports appetite for the BROOMIE4BEARS initiative.

But I got the distinct impression time was of the essence in relation to the share issue and consolidating their block. The dilution to their percentage ownership has to be countered by additional share purchase.... as permitted by DK.

Club1872 owe it to the support to review this asap, it's a quick win for them, a quick shot in the arm for the support.

For them maximum grimace, minimum effort.

For the support .... a sense of engagement at long last. It's been decades since I've felt that.

Rest assured @Papasmurf and the team are not giving up on this yet.
 
As an addendum to my post above, I should have stated that my preference all along has been for the Club to survey the support on this issue.

Second choice would be C1872 to garner opinion.

Third choice .... we do it ourselves as SR had suggested to Papasmurf but then he unfairly pulled the rug from under him before he got the chance. Terrible behaviour by an MD dealing direct with a supporter.
 
HoboUK said:
I'd reckon they've more tho do than run around answering forum posts on Follow Follow. The OP hasn't come back to elaborate either , has he ?

The low on facts point was specifically aimed at the only evidence we have of any of that happening is 1 post from a guy no one here seems to have ever met. That's nowhere near enough to grab the pitchforks yet. I've already stated I believe C1872 does have issues it needs to address its just disappointing seeing so many seemingly gleeful that its having issurs.
Click to expand...
There's a contradiction in that answer.On one hand you're saying the accused have better things to do than answer posts on FF.
You then go on to say there is only evidence from one person.
I suggest the other party should be on here defending themselves.How else are we to judge who is correct?
 
To be honest I'm pretty sick of club 1872 now. They keep saying we have the 2nd largest shareholding but they do absolutely %^*& all with it.

I know you can't ask for your money back but as a life member, I doubt I'll be contributing anymore.
 
ibroxbound said:
There's a contradiction in that answer.On one hand you're saying the accused have better things to do than answer posts on FF.
You then go on to say there is only evidence from one person.
I suggest the other party should be on here defending themselves.How else are we to judge who is correct?
Click to expand...

Ok then....

I suggest follow follow is a ridiculous place to air your dirty laundry and that the OP didn't make the thread on good faith.

Are you suggesting the default should be believing the OP because he's the only one who has made a case ? Did you genuinely believe this is a platform for airing these grievances and that the directors of C1872 should be rushing to a forum to address these claims ?

If there's anything to be answered for then they'll contact the membership , not engage in petty forum drama for the entertainment of the watching tims and idiots.
 
HoboUK said:
Ok then....

I suggest follow follow is a ridiculous place to air your dirty laundry and that the OP didn't make the thread on good faith.

Are you suggesting the default should be believing the OP because he's the only one who has made a case ? Did you genuinely believe this is a platform for airing these grievances and that the directors of C1872 should be rushing to a forum to address these claims ?

If there's anything to be answered for then they'll contact the membership , not engage in petty forum drama for the entertainment of the watching tims and idiots.
Click to expand...

Normally I would agree mate, however, in this instance ‘damaging’ rumours have been made public, rumours which have led to people cancelling payments etc, so it makes no sense not to counter the rumours if they are untrue. Damage has been done in the public eye and damage limitation needs to be put in place to prevent one side or another leading the charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top