Club 1872 Director's Resignation

George Goudie said:
Give it time mate.

He will win.
Click to expand...

It's becoming clear that if we are going to oust them from the Broomloan that Club1872 will have to be bypassed.
  • Backing down when they raised the issue with the board and again when the board swatted them aside
  • to blanking the issue when the issue gets raised by members .
  • Failing to probe our Managing Director when the issue was raised not once , not twice , not thrice but four times at a members meeting.
 
Ron Burgundy said:
It's becoming clear that if we are going to oust them from the Broomloan that Club1872 will have to be bypassed.
  • Backing down when they raised the issue with the board and again when the board swatted them aside
  • to blanking the issue when the issue gets raised by members .
  • Failing to probe our Managing Director when the issue was raised not once , not twice , not thrice but four times at a members meeting.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't concern c 1872, a lot of subscribers are agin it.
 
bluestreak said:
Shouldn't concern c 1872, a lot of subscribers are agin it.
Click to expand...

Against cutting the Savilled Ones allocation , really???

ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg
 
Robert Marshall said:
What I am saying and quite clearly is that you cannot be be Independent if you have a member on two boards. Was not always the case, but after a member of the 1872 board last year applied for a post with Rangers it was made clear that they believed that should not be the case in the future,I was at the meeting when it was discussed.
Do you need more than one reason ?
Click to expand...
Say it as clearly as you want. Club 1872 still aim to have a member on the board.
I really wanted to clarify if it was your opinion, or if Club 1872 had a governance issue. It would have surprised me if they did because the members voted to put a Club 1872 rep on the Rangers board. Overwhelmingly. I see now it is your opinion a C1872 member on the Rangers board compromises independence, but I don't agree with you.
I do dislike how Club 1872 are approaching putting a member on the board, however. And I do think Club 1872 are far to ineffective when putting member's questions, or representing their views to Stewart Robertson.
 
bluestreak said:
Shouldn't concern c 1872, a lot of subscribers are agin it.
Click to expand...

So it should take a position and/or poll members to get the position on this issue (and that of safe standing ... just saw the above post)

Of course, if you're not willing to question the MD in meetings and have an employee on the club's payroll (allegedly, of course) you're probably toeing the party line.
 
JorgAlbertz said:
So it should take a position and/or poll members to get the position on this issue (and that of safe standing ... just saw the above post)

Of course, if you're not willing to question the MD in meetings and have an employee on the club's payroll (allegedly, of course) you're probably toeing the party line.
Click to expand...
Naw
 
Ron Burgundy said:
It's becoming clear that if we are going to oust them from the Broomloan that Club1872 will have to be bypassed.
  • Backing down when they raised the issue with the board and again when the board swatted them aside
  • to blanking the issue when the issue gets raised by members .
  • Failing to probe our Managing Director when the issue was raised not once , not twice , not thrice but four times at a members meeting.
Click to expand...

If they don't agree that this should be pushed then I completely concur with your recommended course of action. They would have to be bypassed.

I would rather do it with them though, that's one of the reasons I joined, supporter initiatives mate. ;)
 
bluestreak said:
The RIFC Board member need not be an c1872 board member or even a member, I would appoint a person to represent our membership.from the applicants.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting option. Possibly.
An independent director, who is not a member of C1872, is added to the RIFC board. The independent director's role is representing supporters. This director is a liaison between C1872, and all other Rangers supporters groups.
 
Robert Marshall said:
Why don't we let the board do their job and we will do ours and support the team
Click to expand...
It's an attitude like this that resulted in fan group's formation, and ultimately their merging into Club 1872. Supporters want to be heard.
 
mart22 said:
That's an interesting option. Possibly.
An independent director, who is not a member of C1872, is added to the RIFC board. The independent director's role is representing supporters. This director is a liaison between C1872, and all other Rangers supporters groups.
Click to expand...
The best way forward bro.
 
mart22 said:
It's an attitude like this that resulted in fan group's formation, and ultimately their merging into Club 1872. Supporters want to be heard.
Click to expand...
Actually RF was formed to get 25% plus one share and to have Transparency from the Board ( whoever that would be at that time ) Not to put an amateur on the Rangers Board
 
Robert Marshall said:
Actually RF was formed to get 25% plus one share and to have Transparency from the Board ( whoever that would be at that time ) Not to put an amateur on the Rangers Board
Click to expand...

Why does it need to be an amateur? Representation might not have been the objective of RF, but you seem to dismiss the idea of fan representation at board level completely.

I posted earlier in the thread where I suggested that too many people believe that putting a football scarf around your neck suddenly robs you of your professional knowledge, skills and experience.

There is no reason why a trust rep at board level cannot be a professional person with a solid background.

Other trusts manage it. This constant desire for Club 1872 to be a mouthpiece shouting from the outside does it absolutely no favours as a meaningful vehicle for fan representation. The Rangers support will never back a successful fans organisation and help it achieve meaningful change if too many fans simply refuse to buy into the idea of fan representation at board level and collective representation.

It works at some of the biggest clubs in the world. Clubs in Germany have had that kind of model where there is large scale fan ownership and significant fan representation for years, going back to their origins as multi-sport members clubs. But for some reason if it was replicated at Rangers we'd have Club 1872 putting Boab fae Possil on the board who knows nothing about business but who can knock up a decent set of shelves or a built in wardrobe?

Club 1872, and whatever fans group follows it, will be locked into a cycle of failure if fans can't buy into a model where the group pursues both share acquisition and representation at a meaningful level.
 
Emailed them yesterday

Haven’t had a reply yet but I’d like to think they’re inundated with members asking questions
 
bluestreak said:
The RIFC Board member need not be an c1872 board member or even a member, I would appoint a person to represent our membership.from the applicants.
Click to expand...

Who appoints them?

The club? Huge danger of the appointment being a patsy.

The support at large? How do fans hold them accountable?
 
Ron Burgundy said:
It's becoming clear that if we are going to oust them from the Broomloan that Club1872 will have to be bypassed.
  • Backing down when they raised the issue with the board and again when the board swatted them aside
  • to blanking the issue when the issue gets raised by members .
  • Failing to probe our Managing Director when the issue was raised not once , not twice , not thrice but four times at a members meeting.
Click to expand...
I have cancelled my membership and monthly donation as a result of this lack of representation of fans wishes and cosying to the board.
 
Robert Marshall said:
Actually RF was formed to get 25% plus one share and to have Transparency from the Board ( whoever that would be at that time ) Not to put an amateur on the Rangers Board
Click to expand...
You mean give their members a voice through share ownership. The power to call EGM's and block takeovers. To ensure what Craig Whyte did couldn't happen again. Bit harsh of you referring to them as amateurs.
 
I will continue supporting Club1872 for the time being.

But I wish to feck the RST/RF merger never happened.

The majority of folk are happy to pay their monthly sub, but the mudslinging and attacks on volunteers doing their best is quite frankly sickening.

I encouraged family and friends who don’t do social media etc, so they don’t see the bullshit, they are happy to donate each month thinking it’s helping Rangers supporters.

This goes tits up I will tell them not to get involved with any other group, will encourage them to do more lines on Rangers lotto, and bin all fan groups.
 
Notice the usual suspects are on backing the idea for Chris to be involved. The guy who somehow managed to have his join date on the old board backdated... did we ever get the answers?

He's not the answer and should be no where near C1872, let alone being paid to be assisting. It begs the question of why.

I've emailed C1872... But I very much doubt a reply will be received. After the way Iain Leiper was treated it was difficult to continue paying up, but unless Chris is removed then I and our Supporters club will be cancelling.
 
mart22 said:
That's an interesting option. Possibly.
An independent director, who is not a member of C1872, is added to the RIFC board. The independent director's role is representing supporters. This director is a liaison between C1872, and all other Rangers supporters groups.
Click to expand...
Dont want to come across as a prick but who would nominate said non-exec? The club? C1872? Show of hands on the subway between Kinning Park and Cessnock?

A sensible and supportive union rep. who offers opinions from another angle can contribute valuably in management meetings, from a management POV. I’ve seen it happen. We need the right people doing whatever is a good job in C1872 and people on the club board who will actually listen, that’s what we need. For me, it’s all about the people. Not the structure or whatever.
 
mart22 said:
That's an interesting option. Possibly.
An independent director, who is not a member of C1872, is added to the RIFC board. The independent director's role is representing supporters. This director is a liaison between C1872, and all other Rangers supporters groups.
Click to expand...

Good idea. Get CG appointed now.
 
grascots said:
I have cancelled my membership and monthly donation as a result of this lack of representation of fans wishes and cosying to the board.
Click to expand...

Pity that mate. Really believe in the concept and it's a shame that the op has caused this current state of distrust.

It's almost as if it was intentional.

A substantial part of our club is owned by the support. Mistakes will be made frequently.

Improvements to directorship will be often required and subsequently made, the shares will still be ours throughout the process.

That's the single most important aspect of this initiative.

Representation on the board is junk Jewellery IMO. Nice to look at but superficial. Representation at a meaningful level is essential. That comes when we own over 25% of our club.
 
George Goudie said:
Pity that mate. Really believe in the concept and it's a shame that the op has caused this current state of distrust.

It's almost as if it was intentional.

A substantial part of our club is owned by the support. Mistakes will be made frequently.

Improvements to directorship will be often required and subsequently made, the shares will still be ours throughout the process.

That's the single most important aspect of this initiative.

Representation on the board is junk Jewellery IMO. Nice to look at but superficial. Representation at a meaningful level is essential. That comes when we own over 25% of our club.
Click to expand...

How is it superficial?

It means that we have someone there who actually knows what is going on.
 
mart22 said:
It's an attitude like this that resulted in fan group's formation, and ultimately their merging into Club 1872. Supporters want to be heard.
Click to expand...

The supporters were heard - membership of both groups voted 90%+ in favour of merging.
 
WOS72 said:
How is it superficial?

It means that we have someone there who actually knows what is going on.
Click to expand...

True. However meaningful engagement is much more important, such as DKs much maligned word 'transparency' between directorships. Minutes made available on request. The ability to contribute/drive the agenda for most board meetings (critical and strategic, not essentially operational). Mutual respect. I could go on and on.

I was at the C1872 meeting where @Robert Marshall made it clear he was not enamoured with the idea of C1872 board representation.

I don't necessarily agree with his reasons for not having it. I just don't see it the immediate priority.

I think this thread is a good indication of where real efforts need to be made.

I also for the record have absolutely no problem whatsoever with CG receiving a stipend from the Club for his expertise in supporter matters. None whatsoever.

I don't know him that will, but know enough about him to know that I trust him. More than I trust the OP, whom I've never met.

I see no conflict of interest, I would if it was anyone else probably. Which is quite strange. Can't explain why, just my gut feeling.

It would be the same with characters like our own David Edgar. No matter how much the board paid him, he wouldn't let them away with any shite! :)
 
George Goudie said:
True. However meaningful engagement is much more important, such as DKs much maligned word 'transparency' between directorships. Minutes made available on request. The ability to contribute/drive the agenda for most board meetings (critical and strategic, not essentially operational). Mutual respect. I could go on and on.

I was at the C1872 meeting where @Robert Marshall made it clear he was not enamoured with the idea of C1872 board representation.

I don't necessarily agree with his reasons for not having it. I just don't see it the immediate priority.

I think this thread is a good indication of where real efforts need to be made.

I also for the record have absolutely no problem whatsoever with CG receiving a stipend from the Club for his expertise in supporter matters. None whatsoever.

I don't know him that will, but know enough about him to know that I trust him. More than I trust the OP, whom I've never met.

I see no conflict of interest, I would if it was anyone else probably. Which is quite strange. Can't explain why, just my gut feeling.

It would be the same with characters like our own David Edgar. No matter how much the board paid him, he wouldn't let them away with any shite! :)
Click to expand...
I have never liked the idea of anyone being forced upon the board and I have always been upfront about it, I just think having a couple of 1872 members meet the Club board for an hour before the Club board meets and have a chat with them about what the fans regard as important, can be a much better and civil way to do things.
The Club Board could then consider them and email the answers back. No fudges, straight forward answers.
I have always been a supporter of RST/ RF / Club 1872 and I don't think people appreciate the hours and work that goes into these things.
Anyone who knows me will tell you I am transparent and upfront with anything I have to say but for what it is worth, I think both the Club and 1872 should be as open and transparent as they can.
If there is bad news,tell us and we can sort it out.
And I have no problem people getting paid for their work, I'm an old fashioned Presbyterian that was brought up with a work ethic
 
George Goudie said:
True. However meaningful engagement is much more important, such as DKs much maligned word 'transparency' between directorships. Minutes made available on request. The ability to contribute/drive the agenda for most board meetings (critical and strategic, not essentially operational). Mutual respect. I could go on and on.

I was at the C1872 meeting where @Robert Marshall made it clear he was not enamoured with the idea of C1872 board representation.

I don't necessarily agree with his reasons for not having it. I just don't see it the immediate priority.

I think this thread is a good indication of where real efforts need to be made.

I also for the record have absolutely no problem whatsoever with CG receiving a stipend from the Club for his expertise in supporter matters. None whatsoever.

I don't know him that will, but know enough about him to know that I trust him. More than I trust the OP, whom I've never met.

I see no conflict of interest, I would if it was anyone else probably. Which is quite strange. Can't explain why, just my gut feeling.

It would be the same with characters like our own David Edgar. No matter how much the board paid him, he wouldn't let them away with any shite! :)
Click to expand...
Exactly how much we talking about:rolleyes:
 
mart22 said:
You mean give their members a voice through share ownership. The power to call EGM's and block takeovers. To ensure what Craig Whyte did couldn't happen again. Bit harsh of you referring to them as amateurs.
Click to expand...
Anyone who is not a Professional in Company Boardrooms is an amateur
 
Robert Marshall said:
The truth is when people get involved in these matters they tend to believe it's their gig and not the members.
I think RF got it right when we agreed not to take any freebies of any kind, like free tickets or Training ground tour or Directors Box tickets on or because of what we were doing.
It just makes you a target never mind how good our intentions were.
We should have the ear of the board but not a Director on the Board or they really are chasing a Blazer.
Ask the members what questions they want asked, not the questions 1872 directors want to ask
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to have a pop or be at all cynical here, but didn't your boys involvement with RF literally get him a blazer?
 
the_glorious_12th said:
I'm not trying to have a pop or be at all cynical here, but didn't your boys involvement with RF literally get him a blazer?
Click to expand...
My son beat 95 other candidates to secure the job , a small fact overlooked by quite a few people who have no idea how the process worked.
I would like to think his experience and how he represented RF and himself at the time helped prepare him for the role
To be honest, I wouldn't be suited to the job but plenty of people who come in the pub seem to think he is doing ok.
He doesn't have a Blazer but an all weather jacket
 
Robert Marshall said:
My son beat 95 other candidates to secure the job , a small fact overlooked by quite a few people who have no idea how the process worked.
I would like to think his experience and how he represented RF and himself at the time helped prepare him for the role
To be honest, I wouldn't be suited to the job but plenty of people who come in the pub seem to think he is doing ok.
He doesn't have a Blazer but an all weather jacket
Click to expand...

I don't involve myself in these threads and will not after this post.

I neither doubt his suitibility nor his credibility.

My only point is the irony in the point you raised earlier. You are often scathing of Trust attempts to get on the board but all i'm pointing out is that no one from the Trust is wearing the club tie now. I'd expect more modesty in your opinions on Trust ambitions.
 
Robert Marshall said:
Why don't we let the board do their job and we will do ours and support the team
Click to expand...
I'd say they need to hear the voice of the supporters. If they don't want to give fans representative a place on the board, then at least initially as goodwill to this idea, they need to somehow give us a forum/platform/say so they can be as transparent as they promised they would be.
 
JorgAlbertz said:
Good reply there.

Naw it should not poll members on important issues?

Or Naw c1872 doesn't have CG embedded ensuring they're dancing to the club's tune?
Click to expand...
Naw I am not toeing the club line,and if they get involved they must vote the membership.
 
iaatpies said:
Who appoints them?

The club? Huge danger of the appointment being a patsy.

The support at large? How do fans hold them accountable?
Click to expand...
The membership of c1872 would have the final say, bear in mind c1872 represents the members, it doesn't have a further mandate to speak for the wider support.
 
the_glorious_12th said:
I don't involve myself in these threads and will not after this post.

I neither doubt his suitibility nor his credibility.

My only point is the irony in the point you raised earlier. You are often scathing of Trust attempts to get on the board but all i'm pointing out is that no one from the Trust is wearing the club tie now. I'd expect more modesty in your opinions on Trust ambitions.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top