General Meeting: Club 1872

All this being discussed on a public message board is embarrassing/amateurish.
It is being discussed as Club1872 haven't provided an opportunity for it to be discussed elsewhere. Many who read this are members and are only now finding out what's been happening and many have cancelled as a result. It is better that members know, change can be effected.
 
Being asked to stop by whom?
I gave you a scenario that would put you in conflict with Dave King. And you ignore it and respond with that diversion. You claim Club 1872 don't like questions, you don't like answering anything awkward either.
If that's all you've got to add then you are useless to me. I'm thinking about how to vote in the elections, and who really are the best people to run Club 1872. I've had some questions answered by well informed posters. The information they provided led to me the opinion I hold on Club 1872 now. I thought you were informed and capable of providing helpful information. However, I can see it's not worth the effort putting questions to you.
 
Baffling that after months of negativity over director resignations, rumours about Chris Graham’s involvement and then the release of Rev. MacQuarrie’s letter that no one from the board of Club 1872 has responded. Perhaps fan media could invite them to take part in an interview where they would have the opportunity to give their side of events. @David Edgar @ID10

Door is always open.
 
I would agree with this, I want c1872 to buy Dave Kings share but only once RFC has stopped issuing shares that are available for c1872 to buy.

Its impossible not to see the cosy c1872 and Dave King relationship has caused them to go for Kings shares ahead of the clubs issued shares.

Didn't King say he was happy to suspend selling his shares to c1872 when they have the opportunity to spend money on new shares that would go directly to the club? Also that timelines could be extended?
 
Didn't King say he was happy to suspend selling his shares to c1872 when they have the opportunity to spend money on new shares that would go directly to the club? Also that timelines could be extended?
He did say that but only when backed into a bit of a corner about it, it certainly didnt seem like something that was in the initial plan.
 
Not much but I’ve just cancelled my subscription as I have no clue who the good guys are anymore . Will save my money and buy shares in the upcoming release . Pissed off with it all
 
I gave you a scenario that would put you in conflict with Dave King. And you ignore it and respond with that diversion. You claim Club 1872 don't like questions, you don't like answering anything awkward either.
If that's all you've got to add then you are useless to me. I'm thinking about how to vote in the elections, and who really are the best people to run Club 1872. I've had some questions answered by well informed posters. The information they provided led to me the opinion I hold on Club 1872 now. I thought you were informed and capable of providing helpful information. However, I can see it's not worth the effort putting questions to you.
You never gave me any scenario and I might be useless to you but here is the answer, If Dave King asked me to stop or set aside I would not do so
Is that clear enough?
 
All this being discussed on a public message board is embarrassing/amateurish.
I don't agree.
Many of the comments are so short sighted it's disturbing.

"Just when all is going so well"
"Just when Celtic are in turmoil"
Yes, that's the best time to make sure we continue on an upward curve. As fans. As a club. As a team.

"On a public forum is embarrassing"
"Are folk jealous"
It's a diplomatic organisation.
Any small group of members has the right to question how things are going and suggest change/improvements. See above. It's how we stay on top.

"These folk are doing their best"
"The board have done no wrong"
Then I don't see the harm in them opening up to members, answering concerns. Being accountable for actions folk are not happy with/have misunderstood/don't understand. And if all is deemed to be well by an educated majority then they've nothing to worry about.

I thought the "David Murray knows better than the rest of us" mentality of Rangers fans would have died in 2011-12.

Far too many short memories.

If a corrupt 1872 board decided to back a coup on the club by some shareholders on the back of promises of spots on the board, we could end up in big trouble again.
I'm not for a second suggesting it's likely.
But if it's 1 percent possible, that's too much.
And the lack of transparency is a concern to many.
Members and would be members, which is surely holding the organisation back.
 
Whether club 1872 really has infighting or is a closed shop isn’t my main concern. My main concern is the fact it’s completely stalled. It’s got what 7k members. It’s had 7k members forever. Where’s the growth . Are you telling me the size of our fanbase that’s the best we can get . Didn’t hearts get more . It’s currently not fit for purpose and it needs reformed . With it without the current directors
There will be no growth until the governance is sorted out. But you are spot on. With 50k season ticket holders 7000isnt success.
 
Certainly worth reading through this given its' importance. Given what the club have been through you'd hope all fans would support a fan led group acquiring as much as possible stake in its' club.

We probably shouldn't be surprised that there will be rivalries and groupings within fan groups. Hence why an expanded board (an odd number though, 7?) would better represent (yes, there will still be groups within it but you can start to dilute them) all fans. Suggestions of those not being involved before also have some merit to counter this. A current business interest of mine with a turnover of £75k has 3 voting board members and I often think it's not enough, so to manage our £4m Rangers shares/£12m proposed purchase?

Stuart McQuarrie's letter is of concern and not addressed by Club1872 to date, I can only imagine he is man of good standing.

So, yes, to me there are obvious issues. My main point however for Club 1872 is how our Legacy membership has stalled over the last few months, something is badly wrong if we have not capitalised on what is "the best of times". It's great the club are doing the share issue but they perhaps don't feel that Club 1872 will deliver what we'd hoped they would.
 
I have read what a few are saying on here about a temporary board
Once I get the required amount to call a GM then I will ask people to come forward so that everyone knows who they are
My intention is not to involve anyone who has been on any previous fans boards
Robert , for me a temporary trusted guardian type figure who with support can ensure the constitution becomes bullet proof would be a possible thought, in fact I have always said that such a figure or small band of high profile figures to act as a veto would have been a good idea from the start! There are many names that people would trust if they were to say “all is above board” or the opposite !
 
We need a character like Bomber someone who is already known so isn’t interested in raising their profile and isn’t in it for themselves but for the best interest of the club.
 
I gave you a scenario that would put you in conflict with Dave King. And you ignore it and respond with that diversion. You claim Club 1872 don't like questions, you don't like answering anything awkward either.
If that's all you've got to add then you are useless to me. I'm thinking about how to vote in the elections, and who really are the best people to run Club 1872. I've had some questions answered by well informed posters. The information they provided led to me the opinion I hold on Club 1872 now. I thought you were informed and capable of providing helpful information. However, I can see it's not worth the effort putting questions to you.

Were you not a well known Whig apologist back in the day?
 
I gave you a scenario that would put you in conflict with Dave King. And you ignore it and respond with that diversion. You claim Club 1872 don't like questions, you don't like answering anything awkward either.
If that's all you've got to add then you are useless to me. I'm thinking about how to vote in the elections, and who really are the best people to run Club 1872. I've had some questions answered by well informed posters. The information they provided led to me the opinion I hold on Club 1872 now. I thought you were informed and capable of providing helpful information. However, I can see it's not worth the effort putting questions to you.
I‘m not entirely sure what caused you to spit the dummy out. You talk about “putting questions” to people, but your post to Robert didn’t contain a single question. It’s not like he wasn’t “answering anything awkward” because you didn’t actually ask anything.

I’m not sure what response you expected to the scenario you hypothesised but reading it back, I don’t think “stopped by whom?” is a ridiculous question.
 
To be honest, I don't understand what's going on.
Mate I am with you on this,I have been making a monthly donation to Club 1872 since the beginning,but all I can see is posters arguing with each other and allegations being thrown around.
I do have reservations about Club 1872 primarily because of occasional rumours that come out and also I have no idea who the people are that are running the organisation.Could some one summarise what the issues are?
 
Mate I am with you on this,I have been making a monthly donation to Club 1872 since the beginning,but all I can see is posters arguing with each other and allegations being thrown around.
I do have reservations about Club 1872 primarily because of occasional rumours that come out and also I have no idea who the people are that are running the organisation.Could some one summarise what the issues are?
Honestly, they’ve been summarised a number of times. But see below:

There are serious concerns about the governance of C1872. There are claims of misconduct made by former directors, claims made of outside interference in the running of C1872 including by an individual thought to be paid (in some manner) by Rangers until last year, allegations made about the conduct of the directors towards members, other directors and club partners such as Castore.

As well as the conjecture, we also have some facts and “circumstantial evidence“ for concerns. That includes the change in the article to reduce the maximum number of directors (to a level that gives the three current Directors control of the board) and extensions to the period of time they can serve for. We also have their barring members from standing for the board on subjective assessments of their social media output and because of claimed (but not evidenced) irregularities in their proposers membership status.

We also have the King share purchase deal, which C1872 walked back somewhat from following the backlash, but the members were not consulted in advance. And, frankly, we have their continued silence on any of the allegations and concerns raised.
 
Honestly, they’ve been summarised a number of times. But see below:

There are serious concerns about the governance of C1872. There are claims of misconduct made by former directors, claims made of outside interference in the running of C1872 including by an individual thought to be paid (in some manner) by Rangers until last year, allegations made about the conduct of the directors towards members, other directors and club partners such as Castore.

As well as the conjecture, we also have some facts and “circumstantial evidence“ for concerns. That includes the change in the article to reduce the maximum number of directors (to a level that gives the three current Directors control of the board) and extensions to the period of time they can serve for. We also have their barring members from standing for the board on subjective assessments of their social media output and because of claimed (but not evidenced) irregularities in their proposers membership status.

We also have the King share purchase deal, which C1872 walked back somewhat from following the backlash, but the members were not consulted in advance. And, frankly, we have their continued silence on any of the allegations and concerns raised.
As a member that hadn’t a clue what’s going on, that’s pretty damning, I’ve never been happy about how members are chosen for being voted on to the board, but after reading Sucks rejection and Rev McQuarries letter, it really does need a massive shake up, which us why Ive lent my support to Robert Marshals call fir an EGM.
 
I find some of the responses on this thread a bit strange. mart22 who I normally look forward to reading seeming to miss the point completely with a simple question on a response to a hypothetical position, posters stating indignantly that the directors of club1872 should be given the right of reply ? Wow! How long since these allegations surfaced , and they appear to have sole control on coms output from the organisation! I see nothing sinister in a request for change of governance and direction, it should not be feared by the current directors. If they win they are vindicated , if they lose they do the right thing and let someone else have a go. Their loyalty should be to the greater good and growth not themselves and maybe if they actually engaged a way forward with them involved could be defined. I reiterate that at the top of a fans organisation should be a voice of reason and trust, whether in an executive position or not ! Someone who can put their hand and and say to all, we have an issue
 
Honestly, they’ve been summarised a number of times. But see below:

There are serious concerns about the governance of C1872. There are claims of misconduct made by former directors, claims made of outside interference in the running of C1872 including by an individual thought to be paid (in some manner) by Rangers until last year, allegations made about the conduct of the directors towards members, other directors and club partners such as Castore.

As well as the conjecture, we also have some facts and “circumstantial evidence“ for concerns. That includes the change in the article to reduce the maximum number of directors (to a level that gives the three current Directors control of the board) and extensions to the period of time they can serve for. We also have their barring members from standing for the board on subjective assessments of their social media output and because of claimed (but not evidenced) irregularities in their proposers membership status.

We also have the King share purchase deal, which C1872 walked back somewhat from following the backlash, but the members were not consulted in advance. And, frankly, we have their continued silence on any of the allegations and concerns raised.
Ok mate,thanks for providing some details,I haven't read every single post on this thread but having scanned over a fair few,it just seems like a lot of shouting.
Outwith the King share purchase,I had no idea about the other concerns and accusations.
I am interested in keeping up to date with what is going on as this will impact on my decision to continue my monthly donation.
I've not trying to be a smart arse but without being ITK where can you find out what's going on here?
 
Ok mate,thanks for providing some details,I haven't read every single post on this thread but having scanned over a fair few,it just seems like a lot of shouting.
Outwith the King share purchase,I had no idea about the other concerns and accusations.
I am interested in keeping up to date with what is going on as this will impact on my decision to continue my monthly donation.
I've not trying to be a smart arse but without being ITK where can you find out what's going on here?
That’s one of the big problems. C1872 won’t address the accusations and they’re never ever forthcoming about director’s resignations so, frankly, you’re left with the discussions on here. I’m too far away to have a hope in hell of being ITK, so this is the medium through which most of this comes to my attention, but once I’m aware it’s usually fairly easy to verify at least the thrust of the claims being made. But yes, you do have to wade through quite a bit of shouting and people taking sides.
 
We need a character like Bomber someone who is already known so isn’t interested in raising their profile and isn’t in it for themselves but for the best interest of the club.
At last, someone is putting a name forward, John is a life member and would IMO be a great shout, surely no one could have a problem with him
( not even sure if he would do it )
 
I‘m not entirely sure what caused you to spit the dummy out. You talk about “putting questions” to people, but your post to Robert didn’t contain a single question. It’s not like he wasn’t “answering anything awkward” because you didn’t actually ask anything.

I’m not sure what response you expected to the scenario you hypothesised but reading it back, I don’t think “stopped by whom?” is a ridiculous question.
It was a smart arse reply.
Very few people realize the importance of Club 1872, in spite of what we've been through, and what it could become for Rangers supporters. A lot of the criticism it gets now will be forgiven if the organization gets it right, and it has to get it right.
This election poses a dilemma to members. The choice is to support a Dave King influenced Club 1872, with all the difficulties that brings, or vote for Malcolm Murray. A very experienced director who will fix the governance problems, and ensure Club 1872 operates to its democratic charter.
I'm not sure what to do. On one hand I think if Dave King wants to "guide" Club 1872 then it's probably the least he deserves. But on the other hand I think all the directors, and shadow director who are being slaughtered on here are likely dancing to Dave King's tune. There might even be problems with the takeover panel if everybody isn't careful.
If Malcolm Murray is elected there's more than likely going to be bitter infighting. He'll need support off members to defeat DK's guys. If Malcolm Murray isn't elected then it's more of the same from Club 1872.
That's a difficult choice, and very few people seem to realize this is what we're voting on. Nobody wants to confirm it, and nobody is denying it, but there are lots of hints, and one or two well informed posters have all but confirmed it.
I just can't be bothered with people agitating for change while at the same time being evasive and smartarsed towards other Club 1872 members.
 
It was a smart arse reply.
Very few people realize the importance of Club 1872, in spite of what we've been through, and what it could become for Rangers supporters. A lot of the criticism it gets now will be forgiven if the organization gets it right, and it has to get it right.
This election poses a dilemma to members. The choice is to support a Dave King influenced Club 1872, with all the difficulties that brings, or vote for Malcolm Murray. A very experienced director who will fix the governance problems, and ensure Club 1872 operates to its democratic charter.
I'm not sure what to do. On one hand I think if Dave King wants to "guide" Club 1872 then it's probably the least he deserves. But on the other hand I think all the directors, and shadow director who are being slaughtered on here are likely dancing to Dave King's tune. There might even be problems with the takeover panel if everybody isn't careful.
If Malcolm Murray is elected there's more than likely going to be bitter infighting. He'll need support off members to defeat DK's guys. If Malcolm Murray isn't elected then it's more of the same from Club 1872.
That's a difficult choice, and very few people seem to realize this is what we're voting on. Nobody wants to confirm it, and nobody is denying it, but there are lots of hints, and one or two well informed posters have all but confirmed it.
I just can't be bothered with people agitating for change while at the same time being evasive and smartarsed towards other Club 1872 members.
I think you should read your postback, at no time did you ask me a question not once, then I asked you who you were talking about and you said, Dave. I then replied to you and I have never noticed you acknowledging that reply
My answer was pretty clear and concise
 
I think having a go at Chris Grahame for supporting in the background is fucking insane.
 
It was a smart arse reply.
Very few people realize the importance of Club 1872, in spite of what we've been through, and what it could become for Rangers supporters. A lot of the criticism it gets now will be forgiven if the organization gets it right, and it has to get it right.
This election poses a dilemma to members. The choice is to support a Dave King influenced Club 1872, with all the difficulties that brings, or vote for Malcolm Murray. A very experienced director who will fix the governance problems, and ensure Club 1872 operates to its democratic charter.
I'm not sure what to do. On one hand I think if Dave King wants to "guide" Club 1872 then it's probably the least he deserves. But on the other hand I think all the directors, and shadow director who are being slaughtered on here are likely dancing to Dave King's tune. There might even be problems with the takeover panel if everybody isn't careful.
If Malcolm Murray is elected there's more than likely going to be bitter infighting. He'll need support off members to defeat DK's guys. If Malcolm Murray isn't elected then it's more of the same from Club 1872.
That's a difficult choice, and very few people seem to realize this is what we're voting on. Nobody wants to confirm it, and nobody is denying it, but there are lots of hints, and one or two well informed posters have all but confirmed it.
I just can't be bothered with people agitating for change while at the same time being evasive and smartarsed towards other Club 1872 members.
Pretty much everything you say about C1872 is true, though I’m not sure how you expect Malcolm Murray to fix the governance problems. 1) he didn’t / couldn’t fix them at RIFC and 2) even if he’s elected, without this EGM and vote of no confidence then he’ll have no ability to do anything, with the current composition of the board and their changes to the articles.

That notwithstanding, I didn’t read it as a smart arse reply. Frankly, when I read your hypothetical I wondered the same thing. Who were you alluding to asking Robert to stop? You talk about hints and evasiveness, but if you had a question then you should ask it.
 
Pretty much everything you say about C1872 is true, though I’m not sure how you expect Malcolm Murray to fix the governance problems. 1) he didn’t / couldn’t fix them at RIFC and 2) even if he’s elected, without this EGM and vote of no confidence then he’ll have no ability to do anything, with the current composition of the board and their changes to the articles.

That notwithstanding, I didn’t read it as a smart arse reply. Frankly, when I read your hypothetical I wondered the same thing. Who were you alluding to asking Robert to stop? You talk about hints and evasiveness, but if you had a question then you should ask it.
I am an open book, people can ask me anything on 1872 / Rangers / Louden
Obviously I won't answer anything of a personal nature or my family on a public forum
 
I think having a go at Chris Grahame for supporting in the background is fucking insane.
What? C1872 is a members organisation. The directors are supposed to dance to the tune of the members. They’re supposed to be open and transparent with the people who’s contributions they are entrusted to use to further the goals of the organisation and members. If, in fact, they’ve been subject to the influence that has been alleged - allegations they refuse to acknowledge or deny - then that’s utterly wrong, utterly inappropriate and utterly destructive to the organisation they’re supposed to be guarding.
 
I think you should read your postback, at no time did you ask me a question not once, then I asked you who you were talking about and you said, Dave. I then replied to you and I have never noticed you acknowledging that reply
My answer was pretty clear and concise

Pretty much everything you say about C1872 is true, though I’m not sure how you expect Malcolm Murray to fix the governance problems. 1) he didn’t / couldn’t fix them at RIFC and 2) even if he’s elected, without this EGM and vote of no confidence then he’ll have no ability to do anything, with the current composition of the board and their changes to the articles.

That notwithstanding, I didn’t read it as a smart arse reply. Frankly, when I read your hypothetical I wondered the same thing. Who were you alluding to asking Robert to stop? You talk about hints and evasiveness, but if you had a question then you should ask it.
Ok you are pals. I get it.
 
At last, someone is putting a name forward, John is a life member and would IMO be a great shout, surely no one could have a problem with him
( not even sure if he would do it )
As I say ,someone of this stature with a high level of oversight would immediately be a stabilising factor and a bridge to confidence
 
Ok you are pals. I get it.
That’s just f***ing childish. I took the time to respond politely and thoughtfully to your posts. And you reply with a childish barb that is as incorrect as it is irrelevant. For someone complaining about “smart arse” replies, you’ve just shown yourself up for a hypocrite.

For the record, I’ve spoken with Robert precisely twice. Once to thank him for a roll and sausage I took from the tray he was standing beside at the Louden and once to disagree with him at an RST AGM.
 
As I say ,someone of this stature with a high level of oversight would immediately be a stabilising factor and a bridge to confidence
Is there anyone else people on here wouldn't object to
If members are happy to put forward names for the caretaker Board
I will ask the question
 
That’s just f***ing childish. I took the time to respond politely and thoughtfully to your posts. And you reply with a childish barb assumption that is as incorrect as it is irrelevant. For someone complaining about “smart arse” replies, you’ve just shown yourself up for a hypocrite.

For the record, I’ve spoken with Robert precisely twice. Once to thank him for a roll and sausage I took from the tray he was standing beside at the Louden and once to disagree with him at an RST AGM.
I knew I shouldn't have gave you that roll lol
 
That’s just f***ing childish. I took the time to respond politely and thoughtfully to your posts. And you reply with a childish barb that is as incorrect as it is irrelevant. For someone complaining about “smart arse” replies, you’ve just shown yourself up for a hypocrite.

For the record, I’ve spoken with Robert precisely twice. Once to thank him for a roll and sausage I took from the tray he was standing beside at the Louden and once to disagree with him at an RST AGM.
You weren't the first to disagree with me and you won't be the last
The way it should be
 
Is there anyone else people on here wouldn't object to
If members are happy to put forward names for the caretaker Board
I will ask the question
I am not sure Robert, my point is more generic, bring someone to the table who’s credentials are not in question and who is free and independent to speak and report on facts ! I don’t know who would be up for it , but the list of “Rangers” that would command respect is long ! I questioned the way Club1872 was being formatted at the very beginning I was soundly chased on many a thread, my opinion is not important, but the principal surely is .
 
Back
Top