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

I've always been wary off it or fans can't agree on anything.

The issue has always been that it needs a paid exec to run it with support staff it needs a wider range of people involved and also non exec directors with no affiliations to the club to ensure proper governance.

Directors should be time barred as well from relection for 2 years etc so that is not the same people it's dangerous set up just now for the money involved

Until they get that is like pissing in the wind, however I do think 1872 is a great idea but it needs to change otherwise it will die
 
....this is Eastenders material. Sounds like we've got a pair of wine aunts and their faithful wee minion getting far, far too big for their boots, to the point of potentially causing bother for the club with a commercial partner.

Frankly these weirdos don't represent me and don't sound suited to anything more than running one of those curtain twitching Facebook 'community' group pages.
 
I carefully considered if I would or would not be a memeber of Club1872 . I decided not to as in my opinion this would likely turn into a vehicle for power hungry individuals to make themselfs feel important. Looks like that expression covers at least 3 of them !
 
Oh my goodness. So disappointed. Think I'll stop with club 1872, started with great hopes. Also feels bad it's being aired so publicly. Needs taken over by the club. Club 1872 isn't owned by temporary directors it's owned by all of us and if we can't agree..has to be club stewarding assetts.
 
Christine1872 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Will you stand this time
 
Any idea of the questions Laura and Euan asked Castore, and why would they ask Castore about Sports Direct?
I'd like to hear the Laura/Euan side of this story. Laura appears to have a good relationship with Dave King, and that's worth keeping in mind. The other thing worth keeping in mind is Club 1872 is independent of Rangers, and acts in the interest of the Rangers supporters.
Sad to see this level of division in our supporters organization. Those elected to the board must appreciate the worth of other elected members, and cooperate in the effort to strengthen the influence supporters have on Rangers.
 
For a members organisation it’s absolutely unacceptable that they would club together and vote that document through. Trust is key and there is question marks over their motives and inability to be transparent. An external audit should be initiated as a minimum. Interesting the term ‘robust’ should come up, we all know what that amounts too.
 
Seriously - why can't we have a unified fan base on what is best for Rangers and work together to improve fans relations with the board?

Club 1872 should not be about self interest, shouting at and ganging up on other members.

If Stuart's version of events are accurate then Club 1872 is being run by people who are not worthy of the role and trust of the 1000s of fans who have donated millions to the pot to get shares.

Any power hungry individual should be instantly barred from having any authority within Club 1872.

What a fxxking shambles - embarrassing.
 
FFS. Reading through all that makes my mind wonder at what Stewart Robertson, Managing Director of Rangers Football Club thought of it. Embarrassing behaviour.
 
There's a lot that's concerning in there but the election part is pretty incredible.
 
That is a disturbing read coming from a source like Rev MacQuarrie, however in fairness I’d like to read a response from Club1872.

I posted on the earlier thread about Rangers family and how actions speak louder than words. In that thread I supported Mark but in fairness I’ve also got to acknowledge the role Laura’s group played in removing Ashley’s shareholding and also some of Chris Graham’s better moments.

The issue for me, and had been since day 1 with Club1872 is that the board is not large enough, not representative enough, not transparent enough and not expert enough in the variety of roles it seeks to fill.

From one press release to the next I’m not even sure as a major shareholder in the club whether it wants to be inside pissing out or vice versa.

The membership of Club1872 is a broad church but it would be a much larger and broader church if the board represented the congregation. Government by a small clique does no one any good.

I get frustrated in all walks of life by people who defend their large share of a small pie rather than accepting a smaller share in an expanding pie. I’ve never met a really smart or successful person who couldn’t grasp that viewpoint but I know plenty of insecure people who allow their fragile egos to limit their horizons.
 
Kampbell said:
I've only skimmed this, but it immediately makes me incredibly wary of fan involvement in our club. Amateur hour.
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t be a warning against fan involvement. Our board are fans.

It’s a warning against unrepresentative fan involvement - where board members are predominantly concerned with protecting their own position and need to safeguard their positions as proxies of the votes they don’t own.
 
frazz said:
I've always been wary off it or fans can't agree on anything.

The issue has always been that it needs a paid exec to run it with support staff it needs a wider range of people involved and also non exec directors with no affiliations to the club to ensure proper governance.

Directors should be time barred as well from relection for 2 years etc so that is not the same people it's dangerous set up just now for the money involved

Until they get that is like pissing in the wind, however I do think 1872 is a great idea but it needs to change otherwise it will die
Click to expand...
I’m sure that was the case originally.
 
Used to be a member of Club1872. Over a period of a few months I gradually became dissolutioned with some of the rhetoric coming out. How many times will supporters come up with great ideas only for someone to try to take charge putting their ego in front of unity.
We really have some supporters with big ticks for themselves it is sickening.
 
Robert Marshall said:
Basically, the three of them have taken control of Club !872 and do not need to ask any member permission to do what they want.
That's how it reads to me
Click to expand...
That's how I read it, as well. I found myself questioning the motive behind this behaviour.
Power for power's sake?
Ulterior motive, if so what?
Final objective is what?

Absolute Hicksville.
 
I have requested information from C1872 on how to call an EGM, if possible, and how to access board meeting minutes, if possible.


I think it is of vital importance that the concerns raised within the letter from an ex board member are treated with all seriousness and investigated by an external agency, including an auditing of the more recent decision making process and the seeming closed shop creation that resulted.


C1872 has too much punter cash and far too little punter involvement to be anything like well run. As allegations pile up, it becomes ever more important to find some clarity.


I would suggest that a 5 person board is not even close to being suitable for such a broad membership and as a consequence, a special resolution at any potential EGM requiring a minimum of 9 board members is looked for in the short term, to be chosen by open ballot, with that number being reduced if required after a minimum of 12 months. A special resolution requiring the current board to appoint an independent auditor to assess recent actions is something that will also need to happen.
 
Utterly shambolic.

Yet again we're wasting time on infighting.
Don't we have have enough external hostile battles to fight?

It's taken a bit longer than I thought it would, but this is the very reason that I didn't invest into Club 1872, seen too many negatives about the old RST to think that this would ever work.

Sadly, we're our own worst enemy.
 
When Rangers First started when we were at our lowest i was right in there, they made all the right noises at the start, am i right in saying they merged with the fore runner of club 1872?
As soon as they merged my £18.72 a month dd was cancelled.
 
It’s maybe time for those of us who are still subscribing to look at the constitution and determine if votes of no confidence can be levelled at the current board of 1872.

I will certainly be looking through it.
 
Paid into RST, Rangers First, and now Club 1872. Liked the statements calling out our haters etc. Don’t see much of that now and am not clear who runs the show
Would love to pay into some kind of fighting fund to defend us against the haters. I appreciate that is not what Club 1872 are about. I wish they were though.
think I’ll stop the payments and put it into the Lotto. The future of Rangers.
 
daven37 said:
Seriously - why can't we have a unified fan base on what is best for Rangers and work together to improve fans relations with the board?

Club 1872 should not be about self interest, shouting at and ganging up on other members.

If Stuart's version of events are accurate then Club 1872 is being run by people who are not worthy of the role and trust of the 1000s of fans who have donated millions to the pot to get shares.

Any power hungry individual should be instantly barred from having any authority within Club 1872.

What a fxxking shambles - embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Ego. Sudden power.

they are no different to others in similar positions of power.
 
Not too bothered about the, "....intemperate outburst" stuff mentioned in the report.

However, the good Reverend's explanation clearly highlights, to me at least, that the "offending"
e-mail shouldn't have been sent without the requisite procedures being followed prior to full approval of the Board.

More worryingly still, this story appears to revolve around a clique enhancing their grip on power and feathering their own collective nest. The fact that Mark and the unnamed lady have been "rejected" from standing might make a cynical person think that they are viewed as potential Cuckoos in that nest.

5 x Directors total with 3 x Directors appearing to always have one another's backs is extremely worrying.

Very poor showing.
 
I have just looked on the website and no links to the constitution or rules are evident, therefore I have just emailed and asked for a link or PDF copy.

I have always been frightened of fan ownership in this capacity. My own thoughts, many years ago, and I met with Mark to discuss if he remembers, was a fan subscribed transfer fund.

Fan ownership brings out the Uber ness in some people and that maybe the situation we are now in and, if so, then surely the honourable and strategic thing for the current incumbents to do would be to stand aside?
 
Joanne has put twenty years into this movement, that is why she is where she is. Like it or not.

Answering phones, stuffing envelopes and playing the game, she did the hard yards and all of the unsung, crap jobs, so if she's protecting her position in a game of politics, I can understand that.

@Christine1872 being accused of wrong doing and being forced out makes my blood boil as she is another who has put in countelss, thankless hours to the movement, let others take the glory and, is a woman of absolute integrity.

Like all organisations, it is all politics, from bowling club to lodge to trade union to boardroom, it never changes.

Frankly, I don't want to know the Dave King angle in this, it worries me.
 
Paisleyprod said:
Are any of the three standing down if not is there any point?

They will vote for their views and win continually if what I just read is all true.
Click to expand...
I am not sure but they will have to come up for re-election I think next year. It could make the coming year difficult for any new director but in a year's time . Those present directors might not be re-elected. It depends on their term length
 
A summary.

An email using privileged information was sent by Laura Fawkes and Euan Alexander to castore, this was confidential, could have led to litigation and was done without the board.

Fawks, Alexander and Percival thereafter continued to outvote the Rev MacQuarrie in board meetings when he raised objections to the unilateral email sent.

The three board members then disbarred a member of c1872 from standing for election to the board due to an allegation that had been made without informing them, giving them the right to reply or telling the independent election adjudicator John Gillian.

Finally and the most damming thing is a vote has been passed to essentially give Euan Alexander, Joanne Percival and Laura Fawkes full day to day control of all the main responsibilities of c1872, communications, projects, operational decisions, meeting with the club etc without the need for board agreement.

Rev MacQuarrie has been allocated administrative accounts and banking roles with no true responsibility and all of this has led to his resignation.

In other words it appears to have been a power grab by the remaining three board members.
 
Last edited:
mart22 said:
Any idea of the questions Laura and Euan asked Castore, and why would they ask Castore about Sports Direct?
I'd like to hear the Laura/Euan side of this story. Laura appears to have a good relationship with Dave King, and that's worth keeping in mind. The other thing worth keeping in mind is Club 1872 is independent of Rangers, and acts in the interest of the Rangers supporters.
Sad to see this level of division in our supporters organization. Those elected to the board must appreciate the worth of other elected members, and cooperate in the effort to strengthen the influence supporters have on Rangers.
Click to expand...
They act in the interests of their members. I cant even remember what it was about but this is what I was told when I asked them why they had made no public comment about something.
 
Chris the Bandito said:
That is a disturbing read coming from a source like Rev MacQuarrie, however in fairness I’d like to read a response from Club1872.

I posted on the earlier thread about Rangers family and how actions speak louder than words. In that thread I supported Mark but in fairness I’ve also got to acknowledge the role Laura’s group played in removing Ashley’s shareholding and also some of Chris Graham’s better moments.

The issue for me, and had been since day 1 with Club1872 is that the board is not large enough, not representative enough, not transparent enough and not expert enough in the variety of roles it seeks to fill.

From one press release to the next I’m not even sure as a major shareholder in the club whether it wants to be inside pissing out or vice versa.

The membership of Club1872 is a broad church but it would be a much larger and broader church if the board represented the congregation. Government by a small clique does no one any good.

I get frustrated in all walks of life by people who defend their large share of a small pie rather than accepting a smaller share in an expanding pie. I’ve never met a really smart or successful person who couldn’t grasp that viewpoint but I know plenty of insecure people who allow their fragile egos to limit their horizons.
Click to expand...
You should know that the deal to buy Ashley’s shares was brokered by another party and they had no idea who the shares belonged to.
 
Glad I binned my payments to this

it’s clear to me that Laura, Euan and Joanne are a power hungry clique that are running this sham of an organisation as though it’s their own personal business rather than a democracy

club1872 fantasy of buying Kings shares is exactly that, a fantasy. Especially whilst these 3 are running it

Laura sounds very manipulative
 
immortal7 said:
Joanne has put twenty years into this movement, that is why she is where she is. Like it or not.

Answering phones, stuffing envelopes and playing the game, she did the hard yards and all of the unsung, crap jobs, so if she's protecting her position in a game of politics, I can understand that.

@Christine1872 being accused of wrong doing and being forced out makes my blood boil as she is another who has put in countelss, thankless hours to the movement, let others take the glory and, is a woman of absolute integrity.

Like all organisations, it is all politics, from bowling club to lodge to trade union to boardroom, it never changes.

Frankly, I don't want to know the Dave King angle in this, it worries me.
Click to expand...

I don’t know the other personalities involved but I do know and like Joanne and, as you say, she has put in the hard yards over many years.

My recollection is that originally there were seven or so on the board and I think at least that number is required to run effectively.
 
Personally I don’t think we, the fans have enough money to make a real go of fan ownership. Im sure they are struggling to find the money to buy kings shares as it is. Then what? Save another 5 years to stick a couple a million in? Penny’s in today’s football. I might be missing the point in it right enough.
 
immortal7 said:
Joanne has put twenty years into this movement, that is why she is where she is. Like it or not.

Answering phones, stuffing envelopes and playing the game, she did the hard yards and all of the unsung, crap jobs, so if she's protecting her position in a game of politics, I can understand that.

@Christine1872 being accused of wrong doing and being forced out makes my blood boil as she is another who has put in countelss, thankless hours to the movement, let others take the glory and, is a woman of absolute integrity.

Like all organisations, it is all politics, from bowling club to lodge to trade union to boardroom, it never changes.

Frankly, I don't want to know the Dave King angle in this, it worries me.
Click to expand...
I only know joanne through going on our bus from time to time but she has never struck me as someone who is power hungry. I do think the communication from club1872 is poor. I dont really get what there is to gain from being on the board of it tbh, it's not as if anyone draws a wage. Just seems a lot of grief for no reward.
 
Christine1872 said:
No, I’d only consider it once the current directors and the shadow director are away.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on the “shadow director”? I’m sure it’s Chris Graham but what’s his end game and is he still in close contact with DK and if so what is DK’ end game aligning himself with a fans group through a proxy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top