The letter from Rev Stuart MacQuarrie which prompted me to stand for Club 1872

mdingwall

Administrator
It contains many issues which should be of concern to Club 1872 members.




Dear Mark,

I hope this finds you well and in good spirits despite this extraordinary week when the Club is under assault from all quarters over matters for which it has no control. I understand you or one or two people whom you know may be considering standing for election to the club 1872 Board of Directors. Since my resignation late last year I have kept my own counsel as to why I resigned. I did discuss the matter with someone who could be regarded as a senior and trusted Rangers supporter who was a driving force for fan ownership of shares but other than that have not spoken about why I resigned. I believe people standing for election to any organisation should know how the organisation operates and the standards of conduct of the organisation. I apologise for the length of this document but this is because of the background and detail necessary. Serving on the Board of Club 1872 was for me a great honour and privilege. Increasingly I came to have concerns about its operation and that it was not a unifying voice on behalf of the fans. The background relating to my resignation may explain why there is little information made available to members and little actual accountability to the membership.

I initially raised concerns about governance of Club 1872 in April and May, 2020. It appeared Euan and Laura as agreed representatives to meet from time to time with senior management of Rangers FC were taking decisions in the name of Club 1872 without consulting with the Board. It certainly seemed to me we may have reverted to the unfortunate situation which forced the resignation of Iain Mulholland.

In July last year I was alarmed to learn of an email purporting to be in the name of Club 1872 sent by Laura and Euan to Castore. Neither Alan Fraser or myself knew of the existence of this email. We only learned of this approach to Castore on receipt of an email to the Club 1872 Board on 6th July from Stewart Robertson alleging Breach of Confidence. The Breach of Confidence was by virtue of Club 1872 as a principal shareholder having used privileged knowledge and contact. Castore naturally passed the email to the Club which was also unaware this unauthorised email had been sent. Besides not having been approved by the Board of Directors the email to Castore referred to contracts and supply arrangements and had not been legally checked potentially exposing expose Club 1872 to the risk of litigation. It is one thing to perhaps request a jersey for auction but seeking contractual or commercial information which may be used to disrupt a contract or discredit individuals is not the place of Club 1872. Least of all, when this is a personal approach which had not been discussed by the Board of Directors nor had the Club management been given the courtesy of knowing about this approach. In fact the Club had furnished Club 1872 with as much information as it could and that email could be interpreted as a crude attempt to check up on the Club.

The response to Stewarts raising this matter with the Club 1872 was outrage from Laura supported immediately by Joanne and Euan who had co-authored the letter. Within a couple of hours they offered unconditional support for Laura who then produced an angry justification which she intended to send to Stewart. This meant that instead of an open discussion by the Board of Club 1872 about the matter there was a predetermined position adopted in advance of any Board meeting. Nonetheless Alan Fraser and myself both suggested we seek a meeting with Stewart and the whole Board of Directors of Club 1872 in order to clarify and resolve the matter.

A meeting of the Board of Club 1872 was convened on 9th July. This meeting was to last almost 2½ hours. The meeting was punctuated throughout by Laura saying on around 9 or 10 occasions, “This is a deal breaker for me.” The Board was left in no doubt that Laura would resign if it did not support her position.

Towards the end of that meeting Joanne raised the fact that I had spoken with Stewart. Stewart was puzzled by the email to Castore and had in fact called me. I was willing to speak with him because I needed to understand from his perspective given my fellow Directors had not apprised me even of the existence of the email and I was quite alarmed by the implications of both the content and the act of sending an unauthorised email of this type. I wanted to explore how it might be possible to resolve the matter amicably. Joanne accused me of being hypocritical. I explained that in speaking with Stewart I was attempting to fulfil my duties as a Director and that she was entitled to disagree. Laura then followed up and directly called me a hypocrite. For someone in my profession this is a very serious allegation. Laura then went on to refer to an email which I’d sent several weeks before in which I raised the question as to Euan being the correct person to assume the communications role when in Alan we had an acknowledged communications professional who had also been Chair of Walter’s Testimonial Year. She then upped the temperature and said loudly that if she was Euan, she would have been extremely angry with me for raising the matter. As someone whose professional life often involves reading people and meetings I could easily see there had been some preparation for this moment. Euan then intervened to say he was ‘fuming’ and in doing so began to take on an intemperate shouting. He was wearing a headset with microphone and began to wave his arms around and got up angrily walking around the room. He shouted I needed ‘to be careful’ and that I had to ‘watch my tone.’ It was manufactured outrage as some two months had elapsed since that email had been sent and we’d all had several discussions in that intervening period.

The full enormity of what had occurred was not actually realised by me until after the meeting. Had Euan conducted himself in this manner in the course of a meeting in his professional employment he would have been referred to the HR department and quite probably instructed to attend an anger management course.

A few days later Alan Fraser resigned as a Club 1872 Director. He pointed out that when we concluded that meeting we had all agreed a different response be sent rather than the aggressive and antagonistic one Laura wanted but now it appeared to revert to a slightly amended version of Laura’s response. Alan is a businessman and company director of some 40+ years experience. He has connections across the top end of the political and business worlds and has worked at the highest levels with charities such as the Variety Club. To lose someone like Alan after some 4 months as a Director of Club 1872 was a heavy loss to the organisation.

With Alan resigning I felt I was compelled to take legal advice in order to afford some protection to my personal and professional reputation and in the event of any litigation arising from that email to Castore. In consulting in this way I did not refer by name or implication to Club 1872 and I believe the person I consulted would not know of my involvement with Club 1872 and not being in the slightest bit interested in football is unlikely to know of Club 1872. I advised the Board of the advice received and Joanne responded by demanding to know who had given the advice. My response in an email below on 17th July stated

With regard to the detail of my conversations I respectfully point out I am not under trial nor will I be the subject of cross examination. Nor will I be intimidated or coerced into supporting a position which I consider to be fundamentally flawed. In the course of last week's meeting I was subjected to several angry and intemperate outbursts including the accusation of being hypocritical. I did not respond to this unwarranted aggression as I had hoped we could through civilised discussion reach an agreed position. I confirm I did not criticise or undermine any decisions of Club 1872 and made it clear I was not speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of Club 1872 collectively or on behalf of any individual other than myself. The purpose of any conversation I may have had was, as I said in last week's meeting, to explore what means may be open towards restoring a working relationship of mutual trust and respect between Club 1872 and the club. I consider that to be part of my responsibility as a Director of Club 1872.
 

mdingwall

Administrator
The position I have arrived at is based on five constituent parts which are set out below


  1. 1.The authority to send the email. There was no authority to send the email to Castore either implied or expressly delegated to Euan and Laura. Nor has there been any request to homologate the action of sending this email from Euan and Laura. There is a minuted reference to Euan and Laura being the Board's appointed representatives to attend certain meetings with Stewart under the general heading of club engagement but by no stretch of the imagination could that relationship be considered to give an authority to send an email of the nature sent to Castore, an external body with whom Club 1872 has no formally agreed relationship. Castore is in this matter a third and external party to the relationship between Club 1872 and the club. The Directors of Club 1872 were not given the courtesy of being advised of the existence of the email. Directors of the Board of Club 1872 other than Euan and Laura only became aware of the existence of this email on receipt of Stewart Robertson's email on 6th July. Nor was the club itself made aware of this email until it was referred to its Managing Director for guidance by Castore.
  2. 2.The Board of Club 1872 has never at any time discussed any of the matters pertaining to that email and has not made any decision which would justify or authorise that email. The closest the Board did have to any discussion remotely connected to this matter was an email exchange in response to the club's request of Wednesday 1st July. As Euan himself points out in an email as part of a general discussion on the club's request we did not actually make a decision or reach a position on the matter.
  3. 3.The origin of aspects of information contained in that email to Castore may or may not derive from Club 1872's privileged and trusted relationship with the club on the basis of it being a principal shareholder. It may be possible to nitpick over certain parts and particular words to claim these were "in the public domain" but that would ultimately amount to a poor defence and justification for the overall position contained in and implicit in the email.
  4. 4.The act of sending the email in itself including the implied criticism and questioning of the trustworthiness of the club may reasonably be considered to be a breach of trust and or confidence between the club and a principal shareholder. Being able to speak to the supplier of kit to request a shirt or the like to be signed does not amount to authority to interfere with or enter into discussions with that supplier over detailed contractual arrangements to which Club 1872 is not a party. The bringing in to the email of a former supplier with whom a long and difficult relationship existed and which holds a reputation for its willingness to enter into litigation, unnecessarily exposes Club 1872, the club and the supplier to some risk. There is also the risk of the interest of the regulatory authorities in the event that any of the various contracts were cancelled or altered as a result of or arising from that email.
  5. 5.Any organisation in which I have held a senior role or position would have had an email of the nature sent to Castore "legalled" i.e. a lawyer would have been asked for advice on the legal questions of both sending the email and the content of the email itself and what the risk factors might be, to suggest any alterations or amendments and indeed the wisdom of sending such a communication. The fact that this was not done by Euan or Laura prior to the email being sent may possibly amount to a dereliction of duty in their capacity as Directors of Club 1872. Additional to this point, is that in the organisations I refer to, where a situation of the gravity, contentiousness and importance of this arose, those who were directly involved in the matter would in the interests of good governance and practice, and with a view to limiting any reputational damage which may arise, be expected, or by way of the articles or constitution governing the organisation, be instructed to withdraw and have no part in the discussions surrounding the matter in question, other than perhaps being requested to provide clarification on certain points and would most certainly not have any role in determining the outcome of the matter.

In conclusion my position remains that the email to Castore should be withdrawn and we seek to arrange a meeting with Stewart Robertson to discuss the issues which resulted in the email being sent. Laura's proposal of yesterday (Thursday 16th July) does not meet that position and accordingly I cannot support it. It is a matter of regret to me to require to write in such forthright terms to people whom I held with respect and some regard.”






A further Board meeting was convened on Saturday 18th July through zoom. At that meeting Laura introduced from the chair her own proposal which was previously circulated and referred to in Alan’s letter of resignation. I moved a counter proposal to withdraw the email and to seek an early meeting with Stewart with a view to resolving the issues which had caused concern. We moved straight to a vote. Laura’s proposal was carried by 3 votes to one.

Without the courtesy of notification to me, Laura acting as Chair introduced my email of the day before and specifically the paragraph which said

With regard to the detail of my conversations I respectfully point out I am not under trial nor will I be the subject of cross examination. Nor will I be intimidated or coerced into supporting a position which I consider to be fundamentally flawed. In the course of last week's meeting I was subjected to several angry and intemperate outbursts including the accusation of being hypocritical. I did not respond to this unwarranted aggression as I had hoped we could through civilised discussion reach an agreed position. I confirm I did not criticise or undermine any decisions of Club 1872 and made it clear I was not speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of Club1872 collectively or on behalf of any individual other than myself. The purpose of any conversation I may have had was, as I said in last week's meeting, to explore what means may be open towards restoring a working relationship of mutual trust and respect between Club 1872 and the club. I consider that to be part of my responsibility as a Director of Club 1872.”

Laura declared there were no angry or intemperate outbursts and that this episode did not occur. In this she was supported by Joanne who stated “there might have been a robust discussion” and Euan who said, “things might have got a bit emotional”.

I stated I disagreed and that I was indeed subjected to such unseemly conduct. It was obvious this part of the meeting had been previously rehearsed by Laura, Euan and Joanne. There was a vote and Laura’s motion was carried 3 votes to 1.

There then took place a number of further email exchanges through which Joanne demanded to know the frequency and nature of any discussions I had held with Stewart and further demanded to know the name of the person who had provided me with legal advice. I declined to provide the name of the legal advisor as the advice was offered to me on a strictly personal and confidential basis. Given the earlier treatment I had been subjected to it seemed to me in the circumstances the person would be contacted and possibly be subjected to interrogation about the advice. I had urged the other Directors to obtain their own advice.
 

mdingwall

Administrator
On 27th July an email was received by the Club 1872 Directors from Stewart requesting a response to his email of 6th July. I emailed the other Directors the following message,


“Dear Laura, Euan, Joanne,


I note Stewart’s email of today and that we are still at something of an impasse. I do not believe the situation is at this stage irretrievable and is capable of being remedied. I have also taken further advice on this matter based on the Club 1872 Articles of Association. Notwithstanding the previous points I have raised on this matter I am now advised of the following:


  1. 1.There was no authority given expressly or by implication under Paragraph 10 of the Articles to send the email to Castore delegated to Euan or Laura. At the time the email was sent (either 3d or 6th July) the matters contained in that email were under discussion by the full Board of Directors and the Board was in the process of making arrangements to arrange an early meeting to discuss these further. Nor was this email checked for any legal aspects and this unnecessarily exposed Club 1872 to the risk of litigation.
  2. 2.The Board of Directors (other than Euan and Laura) was not aware of the existence of this email until receipt of Stewart Robertson’s email of 6th July resulting in a possible breach of the paragraph concerning Directors’ Conduct. (Clause 21.3)
  3. 3.Stewart Robertson’s email of 6th July is a formal complaint about the perceived actions of Club 1872. Since no other Directors than Euan and Laura were aware of the existence of the email to Castore it is essentially a complaint about the conduct of Euan and Laura specified in the Articles under clause 18.2.4. No Conflict of Interest was declared by either party.
  4. 4.Paragraph 18.4 specifies that any Director with a Conflict of Interest remain only for such part of the meeting as is necessary in the view of the other Directors to inform the meeting and to withdraw and have no vote in the matter. In a complaint of the gravity of Breach of Confidence against 2 Directors it would be unreasonable and inappropriate for paragraph 19.1.2 to come in to operation. In any case neither Director declared a Conflict of Interest thereby removing that clause from consideration by the Board.
  5. 5.The effect of these actions and omissions in relation to the Articles of Association is that the meetings of 9th and 18th July are not competent and any decision taken in the course of these meetings is thereby not valid.
  6. 6.Notwithstanding point 5 above, the conduct I was subjected to during part of the meeting on 9th July did not comply with paragraph 21 relating to Directors Conduct. This was aggravated by the introduction without notice at the meeting of 18th July by the Chair of a proposal to dismiss without consideration my reference in an email of 17th July of being subjected angry and intemperate outbursts. The proposal was voted on and was passed 3 votes to 1. Consequently, my attendance or participation in any meeting of the Board of Directors without an assurance that Paragraph 21 shall be fully complied with, would result in condoning the conduct I was subjected to on 9th July, and so I am until I receive such an assurance unable to participate in any meeting.
  7. 7.At least 2 of the above points on their own and points 1 to 6 as a whole may amount to maladministration.

I would urge each of you to check for yourselves and consider the above points. I maintain the best and most appropriate way forward is to withdraw the email to Castore and seek a meeting for the whole Board of Directors with Stewart Robertson. Only 2 lines of an email to Castore and copied to Stewart Robertson would be necessary and as I have said before this would not amount to a loss of face for anyone. I note Euan’s emails of this morning seem to suggest it would only be he and Laura who attends a meeting with Stewart - is that correct Euan, as I would wish to be party to this meeting.


Finally, may I say I find it personally distasteful and a matter of regret to have to send emails of this nature to colleagues and indeed people I consider to be friends. But equally, I cannot support an action I consider to be fundamentally flawed and wrong.


Your sincerely,


Stuart”







Laura raised the question by email as to whether Stewart’s email of 6th July was actually a complaint. I maintained an allegation of such gravity as Breach of Confidence necessitated it being considered a complaint under the Articles of Association regardless of whether Stewart declared it to be or not. Joanne stated she would write to Stewart to seek clarification.

Stewart responded to Joanne’s email

Hi Joanne
I’m not aware of what constitutes a formal complaint from a Club 1872 perspective.
I thought my emails were clear in that they raised concerns and sought answers to the questions I asked regarding Laura’s email sent to Castore.
Happy to discuss by phone if that is helpful
Best Regards
Stewart”




Joanne, (who had been appointed Board Secretary at the end of June) supported by Laura declared Stewart was not making a complaint. It was obvious another 3-1 vote would result/ The declaration meant Laura and Joanne could fully participate as Directors in any meetings including acting as chair and voting as had been done with the meetings of 9th and 18th July. In any public or community body I have been involved with in the last 15 or more years Stewart’s email would have been considered to be a complaint and a formal procedure initiated. Joanne advised me Club 1872 does indeed have a sort of Complaints Procedure on the website https://club1872.co.uk/site-information/complaints-procedure/

A further meeting of the Board of Directors was called for 4th August which would be chaired again by Laura. The day before the meeting Laura submitted her proposals to restructure Board responsibilities under the title Working Group/Operational Structure. (Attached as Appendix) Given the earlier treatment I had been subjected to I declined to participate in the meeting of 4th August and advised the other Directors exactly why. Joanne subsequently advised me it was noted I ‘chose’ not to attend and all the papers had been passed ‘unanimously’ by Laura, Euan and herself. This included the “Structure” document which gives carte blanche to Laura, Euan and Joanne to act in any way they choose. The document is also intriguing as it repeatedly refers to them by name and personal powers with merely a passing reference to any of the roles they occupy. It also removes any reasonable scrutiny of their actions in the name of Club 1872. Any report or update from Laura or Euan in their capacities or Joanne in hers would always have their 3 votes in a Board of only 5 Directors.

In my view the outline of this whole series of events show Club 1872 is not operating to standards of accountability expected of bodies in the community and public sector, particularly with regard to the checks and balances that offer scrutiny and accountability. When I resigned I received a curt instruction from Joanne that I am bound by confidentiality. As a Director of Club 1872 I am bound to accountability and scrutiny by those who entrust Club 1872 with their hard earned funds and it became clear I could not fulfil that obligation of trust.

It is perfectly clear the situation which arose from the sending of what was a personal email unauthorised by the Board of Club 1872 caused some embarrassment. It was an unnecessary and gratuitous act unworthy of the trust placed by Members of Club 1872 in the Directors. Furthermore, the situation was clearly capable of resolution and that is indeed what Rangers wanted.

One post script which in its own way emphasises how Club operates. The first meeting of the Board elected in January 2020 took place on Saturday 15th February. This was the day the match v Livingston was postponed because of a sudden and extensive downpour. I wrongly assumed the Board meeting would similarly be put off and it went ahead with my absence noted. The minutes of the meeting record that Laura presented a written report alleging various acts of misconduct by a Club 1872 member who submitted her name to be a candidate for election but was not elected. The Board resolved that this named member of Club 1872 would be disbarred from standing in any future election. It was only around September that year I mentioned this in conversation to John Gilligan. John had acted a Returning Officer for the Board Elections in January to ensure they had been conducted with propriety and to the standards expected. John knew nothing of this and was taken aback. The realisation that a member of Club 1872 who pays her money to the organisation, is a Rangers supporter, can be disbarred from being a candidate in an election on the basis of a report she has neither seen nor had the opportunity to respond to, and that this report with its allegations of misconduct is written by another candidate without reference to the election’s Returning Officer is quite astonishing. This episode alone shows the Board of Club 1872 is not acting in accordance with its own Articles of Association nor the accepted and regulated standards of conduct for Boards of Directors entrusted to run an organisation’s affairs. This raises questions concerning the integrity of the arrangements for the current elections .

As I said earlier I apologise for the length of this document and trust you will understand the need for the detail included. I would be willing to swear this document as a legal affidavit in order to confirm the veracity of what is presented. I have left sending this to you until after nominations have been closed to prevent any accusation of interfering with the nomination process.

Yours,

Stuart
 

mdingwall

Administrator
Also attached is a proposal concerning the organisation which would have left all important aspects of the running of the organisation in the hands of The Three.


Working group/operational structure – Club 1872 Shares CIC

Due to the nature and structure of the Club 1872 companies, there is a distinction between operational activities and board governance of the companies. Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will be designated as operational directors for both the Shares and Projects CICs, with authority to manage and carry out day to day operational activities delegated to them by the board.

Without binding the board to any particular course of action, Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to engage with third parties and in doing so discuss, ask questions/seek information, share ideas/opinions, make suggestions and offer feedback based on queries/input from members and working group volunteers, on their experiences of operational matters (as set out below) and on positions/statements previously agreed by the Club 1872 board. Authority to negotiate commercial partnerships or any other third party agreements will be delegated to Laura and Euan, with final board sign off required. Final approval from the board is also required for issuing statements and purchasing shares (prior to member votes where necessary or appropriate).


Comms and campaigns
Responsible directors - Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane (Joanne Percival to continue to assist with social media output and queries from members).


Duties/responsibilities
Euan Macfarlane and Laura Fawkes will have authority delegated to them by the board to

Draft all Club 1872 communications including emails to members, tweets, Facebook and Instagram posts, statements and media comments/quotes

Prepare campaign and recruitment info, advertising materials, etc.

Engage with all third parties for any purpose including gathering information to assist with drafting/preparing statements, email replies, member updates, media comment, campaign materials, etc. This will cover, but will not be limited to, contact with Rangers Football Club, journalists/editors, fan media representatives and other shareholders,

Statements will be approved by the board. Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to approve any media comment/social media post/email content that is based on statements previously agreed by the board





Admin & membership engagement

Responsible directors - Joanne Percival and Laura Fawkes

Duties/responsibilities

Joanne Percival and Laura Fawkes will have authority delegated to them by the board to

Manage and oversee Lilian’s work and act as her points of contact on the board


Assist members with email enquiries and provide account support.


Liaise with RSCs to recruit, advise, support, etc.


Manage website and subscription data


Liaise with webmaster on website issues, upgrades, etc.


Maintain accurate and up to date information on Companies House, including filing confirmation statements, etc.


Engage with third parties including Companies House and lawyers appointed by the Club 1872 board





Banking and accounts


Responsible directors - Laura Fawkes and Stuart MaQuarrie

Duties and responsibilities

Laura Fawkes will have authority delegated to her by the board to make payments for costs relating to the operation of the company, and to liaise with Lilian and third parties on invoice queries, etc.

Stuart MacQuarrie will have authority delegated to him by the board to liaise with accountants appointed by the board to prepare annual accounts and make necessary arrangements to have them approved by the board and submitted to Companies House.


Club engagement
This would not be a working group, but an area of responsibility/authority.

Responsible directors - Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane.

Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to engage directly with the RIFC and TRFC boards as well as senior management and staff at Rangers. This will include but not be limited to Stewart Robertson, James Bisgrove, James Blair, David Graham and Greg Marshall.

Euan Macfarlane and Laura Fawkes will have authority delegated to them by the board to make contact and organise meetings with the contacts mentioned above and other representatives of Rangers Football Club. Without binding the board to any particular course of action, Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to engage in dialogue with these contacts, and in doing so ask questions/seek information, share ideas/opinions, make suggestions and offer feedback based on queries/input from members and working group volunteers, on their experiences of operational matters (as set out above) and on positions/statements previously agreed by the Club 1872 boards.

No other director will have authority to engage with any of the contacts mentioned previously in this section, with any other representative of Rangers Football Club or with any other third party on any matter concerning Club 1872 other than as set out in the working group structure detailed above. Any approaches made to Club 1872 directors other than those who’ve had authority delegated to them as set out above should be referred to the relevant directors. If any director is unsure about their authority to act in any given circumstance, they should consult the Club 1872 board before proceeding.
 

mdingwall

Administrator
Working group/operational structure - Club 1872 Projects CIC

Due to the nature and structure of the Club 1872 companies, there is a distinction between operational activities and board governance of the companies. Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will be designated as operational directors for both the Shares and Projects CICs, with authority delegated to them by the board to manage and carry out day to day operational activities.

Without binding the board to any particular course of action, Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to engage with third parties and in doing so discuss, ask questions/seek information, share ideas/opinions, make suggestions and offer feedback based on queries/input from members and working group volunteers, on their experiences of operational matters (as set out below) and on positions/statements previously agreed by the Club 1872 boards. Authority to negotiate commercial partnerships or any other third party agreements will be delegated to Laura and Euan, with final board sign off required. Final approval from the board is also required for issuing statements and purchasing shares (prior to member votes where necessary or appropriate).


Project planning/delivery

Responsible directors - Joanne Percival and Euan Macfarlane

Duties/responsibilities

Joanne Percival and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to liaise with third parties (including Rangers Football Club) to gather information for the purposes of presenting project ideas to the board, working with third parties and working group volunteers to assist with the planning and delivery of projects.

Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to him by the board to lead on projects relating to Project 2022, stadium upgrades, etc. and link this work with his participation in the Community Forum.

Joanne Percival will have authority delegated to her by the board to lead on projects in partnership with the Rangers Charity Foundation, RYDC and Women’s Football.


Comms and campaigns

Responsible directors - Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane (Joanne Percival to continue to assist with social media output and queries from members).

Duties/responsibilities

Euan Macfarlane and Laura Fawkes will have authority delegated to them by the board to


Draft all Club 1872 communications including emails to members, tweets, Facebook and Instagram posts, statements and media comments/quotes

Prepare campaign and recruitment info, advertising materials, etc.

Engage with all third parties for any purpose including gathering information to assist with drafting/preparing statements, email replies, member updates, media comment, campaign materials, etc. This will cover, but will not be limited to, contact with Rangers Football Club, journalists/editors, fan media representatives and other shareholders,

Statements will be approved by the board. Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to approve any media comment/social media post/email content that is based on statements previously agreed by the board


Admin & membership engagement

Responsible directors - Joanne Percival and Laura Fawkes

Duties/responsibilities

Joanne Percival and Laura Fawkes will have authority delegated to them by the board to

Manage and oversee Lilian’s work and act as her points of contact on the board


Assist members with email enquiries and provide account support.


Liaise with RSCs to recruit, advise, support, etc.


Manage website and subscription data


Liaise with webmaster on website issues, upgrades, etc.


Maintain accurate and up to date information on Companies House, including filing confirmation statements, etc.


Engage with third parties including lawyers appointed by the Club 1872 board



Banking and accounts

Responsible directors - Laura Fawkes and Stuart MacQuarrie

Duties and responsibilities

Laura Fawkes will have authority delegated to her by the board to make payments for costs relating to the operation of the company, and to liaise with Lilian and third parties on invoice queries, etc.

Stuart MacQuarrie will have authority delegated to him by the board to liaise with accountants appointed by the board to prepare annual accounts and make necessary arrangements to have those accounts approved by the board and submitted to Companies House.


Club engagement

This would not be a working group, but an area of responsibility/authority.

Responsible directors - Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane.

Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to engage directly with the RIFC and TRFC boards as well as senior management and staff at Rangers. This will include but not be limited to Stewart Robertson, James Bisgrove, James Blair, David Graham and Greg Marshall.

Euan Macfarlane and Laura Fawkes will have authority delegated to them by the board to make contact and organise meetings with the contacts mentioned above and other representatives of Rangers Football Club. Without binding the board to any particular course of action, Laura Fawkes and Euan Macfarlane will have authority delegated to them by the board to engage in dialogue with these contacts, and in doing so ask questions/seek information, share ideas/opinions, make suggestions and offer feedback based on queries/input from members and working group volunteers, on their experiences of operational matters (as set out above) and on positions/statements previously agreed by the Club 1872 boards.

No other director will have authority to engage with any of the contacts mentioned previously in this section, with any other representative of Rangers Football Club or with any other third party on any matter concerning Club 1872 other than as set out in the working group structure detailed above. Any approaches made to Club 1872 directors other than those who’ve had authority delegated to them as set out above should be referred to the relevant directors. If any director is unsure about their authority to act in any given circumstance, they should consult the Club 1872 board before proceeding.
 

Laudrup1

Well-Known Member
I for one am going to need this summarised

I gave it my best shot and managed the first post before realising there was more.

I'm unclear on the actual issue raised initially about the contact with Castore.

I'll maybe read the rest when whatever that problem was is cleared up.
 

B Ferguson 6

Well-Known Member
Considering they’re the 2nd biggest shareholder in the club that makes disturbing reading.

for an organisation with so many members their directors are very wide reaching.

not many organisations this size would have the same financial, marketing, sales and customer service director.
 
Last edited:

TimzRFudz

Well-Known Member
I’ve had the privilege of knowing and working with Stuart. I’m disgusted at what I’ve read in this thread. As I’ve said elsewhere, membership cancelled. Wouldn’t trust that cabal with a pound, far less hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of share dealings.

An example of why we can never take our eye off the ball again in relation to the running of Rangers.
 

Raffles

Well-Known Member
I’ve had the privilege of knowing and working with Stuart. I’m disgusted at what I’ve read in this thread. As I’ve said elsewhere, membership cancelled. Wouldn’t trust that cabal with a pound, far less hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of share dealings.

An example of why we can never take our eye off the ball again in relation to the running of Rangers.
As you rightly point out, there is a large amount of fans donations tied up in the organisation, so I’m gonna hold fire on any cancellation of payments until I see who is up for election
 

mdingwall

Administrator
As you rightly point out, there is a large amount of fans donations tied up in the organisation, so I’m gonna hold fire on any cancellation of payments until I see who is up for election
I think I can confidently predict that two of them will have had plenty of time and coaching to make sure their social media is clear and they will not be asking awkward questions of the three current directors or the shadow director.
 

the bigman

Active Member
Essentially, they were trying to get something from Castore to use in their mad vendetta with David Graham.
Why would they have a vendetta against David Graham? He had hardly been in post at that time. Also as Rangers Communication director, he would have no remit with Castore surely?
 

mdingwall

Administrator
Why would they have a vendetta against David Graham? He had hardly been in post at that time. Also as Rangers Communication director, he would have no remit with Castore surely?
They've got one. Why? I can only guess. Certainly his appointment coincided with their breaking off of comms with me despite no chat about it. I presume because I used to live and work in Northern Ireland they assumed I would be in DG's camp. However, at that time I didn't know who he was, had never communicated with him and, because I don't routinely listen to podcasts, I was even unaware he had been on Heart & Hand.
 

BobbyShearer

Well-Known Member
Always the same names-surely it isn’t healthy for an organisation to be so heavily reliant on the same individuals?

Not only that but there appears to be a real resistance to opening that up to anyone even under the guise of assistance.
“Ma baw” should be well beneath an organisation of such stature.

And of course, I dare say the individual mentioned is probably Christine. Another name who crops up yet seems to be the (apparent) victim of another bit of a vendetta.
Clusterfuck.
 

DejaVoodoo

Well-Known Member
Based on the information here and the previous stories that did the rounds, it would appear that to get Club 1872 operating at it's best, Laura needs to be voted off at the elections.

It's seems like there's a power clique operating and that any director outside of that group can't do anything unless it meets the cliques views.
 

the bigman

Active Member
They've got one. Why? I can only guess. Certainly his appointment coincided with their breaking off of comms with me despite no chat about it. I presume because I used to live and work in Northern Ireland they assumed I would be in DG's camp. However, at that time I didn't know who he was, had never communicated with him and, because I don't routinely listen to podcasts, I was even unaware he had been on Heart & Hand.
That’s interesting that they broke off comms with you Mark then all of a sudden they bar you from standing. Almost like they fear what you might find?

Re DG, you can only assume from that, that he has had some dealings with them previously that some of the directors didn’t like.

FWIW I stopped paying in to Club 1872 a year ago as I felt their governance was a concern
 

mdingwall

Administrator
Why would they have a vendetta against David Graham? He had hardly been in post at that time. Also as Rangers Communication director, he would have no remit with Castore surely?
This has just occurred to me however that with Dave King leaving Chris Graham was no longer being paid or able to directly influence media policy that might have been motivation. But certainly Chris wouldn't have been able to take up that role, or pay-packet, himself.
 

Pollokprod

Active Member
I wouldn’t be surprised if there issue with DG is his preferential treatment of fan media groups. I could go into this further but won’t just now. C1872 have been left wanting in that department. With the intro of mygers they have now been left wanting in another department. Laura sees c1872 as hers and hers alone. The fact these 3 “directors “ have been there so long and a are achieving nothing says a lot.
 

forlanssister

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
In my time with the Rangers Fans Board Stuart was of great assistance and guidance to us, I found him to be a man of utmost honesty and integrity. It was clear there was something seriously amiss at the time of his resignation from Club 1872.

It is clear the current leadership is unfit for purpose.
 

Billiericky

Well-Known Member
Anyone know where Dave King fits in with this?

Does he really want Club 1872 to buy shares in the club?

Or is he saying if you want influence buy shares, and buy big time, and back the club with real cash when they need it.

Otherwise stfu?
 

marmaladebear

Well-Known Member
When any organisation is perpetually under the control of a small group of individuals with a common purpose it stinks. I knew someone who was on the board for a short time and wondered why it didn't last longer. I had the utmost respect for that person on a number of levels - a true bear. This latest episode explains a lot. For me, some people cannot be trusted. It's almost as if we have been infiltrated.
 

TimzRFudz

Well-Known Member
As you rightly point out, there is a large amount of fans donations tied up in the organisation, so I’m gonna hold fire on any cancellation of payments until I see who is up for election
I get your point mate, but it’s final straw time for me. I’ve paid in without fail since the RST days. I’ve had enough of their amateurish nonsense. I almost binned it after the childish tweet episode (obviously they don’t do irony), but I stayed in for precisely the reason you allude to.

However I can’t support these clowns any longer, literally and figuratively.
 

Coatbridge Chancellor

Well-Known Member
The one thing that keeps coming back to me anytime anything C1872 is raised is this:

With respect, who are these three people?

I know their names, but couldn't pick them out of a police line-up. They hold a massive amount of control in our football club, by way of their positions as directors of the largest (only?) fans group, yet they remain mostly anonymous.

We know Mark, David Edgar, Rev McQuarrie, even Robert from the Louden ffs, we might not like or support some or all of them but they are visible and accountable for their actions/statements.

I'm not a member of Club 1872, and despite my previous fervent wish for them to work out, at the moment I'm glad I am not.
 

Brookfield Bear

Well-Known Member
That does not make for great reading, really poor from Laura, Euan and Joanne.

Did Rev Stuart give permission for that to be published on here?
 

Strathblue

Well-Known Member
It's worth printing out and reading in it's entirety - that way you get a feel for how the organisation has been operating.
Mark I started that journey with you and others on the early Gersave scheme, then the RST , and ultimately to club 1872.
I had reservations regarding Club 1872, now I’ve none now, as I’m now convinced the last step in the journey was a mistake.
Great idea’s always seem to become secondary when egos and avarice rears its ugly head.
 

Christine1872

Well-Known Member
Always the same names-surely it isn’t healthy for an organisation to be so heavily reliant on the same individuals?

Not only that but there appears to be a real resistance to opening that up to anyone even under the guise of assistance.
“Ma baw” should be well beneath an organisation of such stature.

And of course, I dare say the individual mentioned is probably Christine. Another name who crops up yet seems to be the (apparent) victim of another bit of a vendetta.
Clusterfuck.
Yes, it is me although I’m unsure what this misconduct means. About 3 years ago Laura told me that I had breached data protection. This apparently happened in January and was based on a voicemail I left for Laura. Laura went to the Board at the time and told them I had done it. I wasn’t informed of this until the October when it was used to blackmail me into not standing for the Board. Laura threatened that she and Joanne would both resign if I applied. Given all the resignations earlier in the year I chose not to apply but I wish now I had called their bluff. FWIW, I did not breach data protection and got this confirmed by the Information Officer.
 
Top