maineflyer

If you really want to put Smith's OF record in perspective, try comparing it with what we achieved against celtc during the years between him leaving in 1998 and taking up he reins again.

Why do we need so many representational organisations? Why would we want to pay subscriptions to the RSA when we already have the option to do the same to the RST? What is it you think the RSA could do that the RST couldn't? Isn't what we really need a strong and effective Supporters Trust? We have what we need, it's just been a dysfunctional mess so far. What I can't see any point of is the RSA, never have.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way buy you currently have 17 posts on RM and 59 on Gersnet. So I guess you have either restricted you online time to FF or you have abandoned previous usernames in your new role as RST board member. Would you therefore mind telling me what other usernames you have been using so that we might all better understand your stance on relevant matters?

You might have been asked but you also had the freedom to accept or decline, so volunteered isn't such a bad description. Frankly, collaborative working isn't dear to my heart, in any walk of life. Achieving results is. If collaborative working does it then fine but I would never set out to put style over substance. As for the notion of settling in time, that generally relates to tactical issues, not core objectives. If you didn't know what you wanted to change before you agreed to become a board member then I'm at a bit of a loss to know why you did so. I believe it's sound to take time to weigh up how to implement change but it is always a good idea to let people know in advance what it is you've arrived to do. At least that's been my experience and it definitely saves any confusion within and outwith the group. The idea that someone's role in the RST is dependent upon their prior acceptance by the group is a certain recipe for maintaining the status quo rather than achieving he improvement you speak about. Of course, time will tell soon enough. Surely you have full legitimacy by virtue of becoming a board member. As for power, you bring that with you from your constituents .... tell people what it is you want to do, get their support, THEN take it to the RST board. If you're looking for power to be accorded by existing board members then it's definitely status quo ahead. Did you agree to join the RST board to accommodate the existing board members or the Rangers fanbase? With respect UCB, it's got naff all to do with democracy, that should be assured by the RST constitution. Every board member should be there to act in the interests of the RST membership and to do so in a way that will attract new members. The Trust isn't a platform for the board to hone their democratic credentials, it's about acting in the interest of Rangers supporters and the club they follow. I'll say it again, results matter more than style points. I feel neither disappointment nor any other emotion towards you as a person, I don't know you. My comments simply reflect my own belief about how to get things done, rather than talking about getting things done. That's what I do for a living and it's hard not to apply it to other things that interest me. In the end though, it's you who have 'volunteered', not me, so my thoughts on the subject are merely observations from the sidelines. You're the one who actually has to make a difference. By the way, do you have those membership numbers yet?

In the interest of victory, I'm refusing to make a prediction .... because I'm so shit at it.

I've little doubt the devil would do well enough from your advice.:devil:

Since you've volunteered this insight, I would like to respond on a couple of points. Firstly, it's not really acceptable to simply gloss over the events of the past, since these are intimately tied to the reasons why membership has declined so sharptly in recent years. If you're going to go on to talk about aspiring to build membership, I think you (and he rest of the RST board) need to go back and address the fundamental reasons why the RST has been such an unacceptable option for so many Rangers supporters. What you call "latent support" might equally be described more appropriately as lost members. In essence, you can choose to go in one of two directions ..... you can sweep the past under the carpet in the hope everyone else will follow your lead ..... or you can start addressing the underlying issues that have carved the past in such a profoundly negative manner. Secondly, you say in general terms what you want to do but nothing specific about how you're going to do it. Worse, you are continuing the line that the means is best kept "internal". In other words, don't expect you to share your specific ambitions with the people you now represent or allow them to see how you intend to achieve the improvement you talk about - or judge you on the extent to which these results are actually achieved over time. Sorry, but what you offer above are largely platitudes and will attract no one to the Trust; just my opinion of course. I don't doubt and won't question your intentions but if you want support and trust then you need to go considerably further. Exactly what improvement aims and what specific actions will you be taking to achieve them? You tell me how you're going to achieve his improvement and if it's convincing and credible, I'll back you all the way. How's that?

The thing is hough that the objective from the very start should have been to reach out to ALL fans, members and potential members alike. Why would anyone have thought it acceptable to do anything less?

The size of the website membership isn't the issue. An RST member accessed ia Gersnet is equally as valuable an exercise as one accessed via FF or RM. In any case, the RST should see no value in such judgemen, i's objective should be o communicat eeffectively with every last member by whatever means helps that to happen. Getting the message across is what should be important, not the choice of medium, but the chairman of the RST has again made it perfectly clear he doesn't think like that. QED Edit - I just want to add that if the RST had wanted to take communication with its membership as seriously as it should have done, the RST site would have had it's own forum for effective and direct communication and debate with its members. That they chose never to implement this despite repeated calls for it say as much about the interlocking relationship of FF and RST as I ever could.

You're right, of course, and these are not my questions. UCB is a name that has appeared on more than one forum, generally adopting a single-issue posture, and I took it to mean in the quoted RM post whether or not UCB already exists under an alternative username, there or elsewhere. When I see you post on another forum, I know who Bluedell is and where you stand on certain issues, so I kinda know where you're coming from. I also use the same username on all forums - it doesn't reveal my personal name but neither do I confuse the issue by having multiple online identities. If UCB has or continues to exist under alternative username(s) then it seems a reasonable question to ask what these are. As always, no reply is obligated. In any case, it still leave several more pertinent questions.

There's no "bad start" from where I'm standing and nothing to change in anything I've posted. You have to decide what if anything you want to take from my posts or those of other members of this and other sites. You stepped up to the plate, for which you've received nothing but commendation. You chose to issue the Op in this and other sites for a reason and others have responded. Were you expecting something different? Tell you what, less generic promotion and more specific policies would probably earn a more favourable response, if that's what pulls your chain.

I thought they'd banned happy hours.:devil:

But he did volunteer and if he didn't do so with his eyes open then presumably it was ill judged. To be brutally honest, failing to acknowledge past problems and even trying to deny what we all know to be true isn't much of a start. He made the same OP over on RM and received the following questions in response.... Welcome and my fiirst question is what is your real name? What is your background and are you a member of long standing of the RST and any Rangers fansite? Where were you when the old RST Board split and where was your allegiance? Is your last few sentences your sole reason for members like myself to rejoin the RST or can you explain why you and the current board of the RST are different from the one that emerged after the serious infighting of the past that led to mass resignations of good people who are very much a part of RM? Sorry to appear negative but I would like an answer to these questions before going any further. I also think it would be most useful to know the answers to these questions.... purely in the interests of open debate of course. I wonder if the same post was offered on VB and other sites?

You're having a laugh, aren't you? Surely you don't actually believe you can come out with stuff like this that flies in the face of everything we've seen over the years and expect to be taken seriously? I realise that your assigned task (oh yes) is to counter the growing consensus that the RST simply isn't working but you need to step a little closer to the light if you're to give yourself any chance whatsoever. "The Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust". A wonderful example of the truth masking reality, factually correct but otherwise entirely inaccurate. An ugly joke in fact. Who leaps to defend the RST against nasty websites? Not Stephen Smith, chairman of the RST board but his alter ego Bearwood Bear, the FF fixer and keyboard assassin. Where does he do this defending - not from his lofty RST perch, nothing at all to say on the RST website - but from his more accustomed position on FF. It reminds me of the same RST chairman who wrote to me shortly after assuming his present office, in response to a question I had left on the RST website. The new chairman answered my query at great length and with much enthusiasm and promises - but not as chairman of the RST. No, the new chairman presented himself in his finest FF guise without even reference to the RST. It also reminds me of at least two occasions when he RST represented me at meetings with the Rangers chairman, after which the Trust's position and meeting outcomes were outlined not on the RST website or directly to RST members, but on FF, with FF grandees speaking for the RST. No such courtesy was afforded oher website forums mind you, just FF. But remember, "The Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust". Except, de facto, it is. I would not dispute that there is overlap in membership but I know for certain that some Trust Board members would not be known on FF and that there are people on FF who do not support the Trust. Wonderful, we now have proof by exception. There are some FF members who don't support the RST, so there cannot be a connection between the two. I knew a celtic supporter once who wasn't a catholic, ergo there cannot be any connection between celtic and the catholic community, brilliant. No, it's not brilliant, it's actually insulting. Let me offer some suggestions how you might resurrect the reputation of the RST, build the membership and start living up to the aspirations and goals of the Supporters Trust. Behave openly and honestly, stop spinning for the sake of manipulating opinion, act in unison with other supporters' groups, break the exclusive arrangement with a single preferred fans' website and work in an evenhanded manner with all. Consult with your membership, consult with the wider fanbase, publish clear aims and targets, monitor and report progress against these targets on a regular basis. And above all, be prepared to be judged by results rather than style and stop whining about criticism. It's not your Trust, it's Rangers Supporters' Trust.

You are on excellent form here Craig:).

There you have it, concisely put.

Craig, I don't really mind being pigeon-holed and it's not the first time you've chosen to do this. But in this case I want to set you straight before you go any further. I am most definitely NOT anti-Trust and never have been. Not once on any forum or in any conversation have I ever criticised Supporters Trusts or failed to confirm my support for such organisations. That my friend is a fact and if you haven't taken it on board then you haven't been paying attention. I was an early RST member and subsequently converted to life membership. I promoted the RST to friends and family and believe I was responsible for a good number of new members joining. I am an avid believer in the fundamental aims of supporters trusts and would like nothing more than to see a Rangers Supporters Trust making an effecive and constructive contribution. I've never varied from that in anything I've written or you've read. What you are confusing is the opinion I have evolved over the last three years or so about the way the RST in particular has been hijacked, mis-run and now marginalised by a small clique of self-promoters. I have frequently criticised the lack of achievement by our Trust and the loss of membership caused by these people, which I think I have every right to do and which has seldom been given any credible answer by those involved. I'm far from alone in this and a great number of people have long openly questioned the running of the RST, including the inexplicable unity between the Trust and FF. We've watched division and barely suppressed conflict emerge within the RST elite, and we've waited in vain for any tangible results from this long and fractious exercise. What you are seeing now and what you will see increasingly over the coming months is a concerted attempt by FF/RST to fight back against a hail of criticism. However, rather than address the criticisms being levelled at them, what is being offered is generally a combination of denial and counter-criticism. Don't expect any real change of performance. You should also understand that the impetus for this fightback lies largely with FF rather than the RST side of that coin. There have been numerous fans' initiatives, some of which are still current, where FF has declined invitations to participate and has effectively created its own isolation. This is being transposed into a sense of attack or criticism from other organisations and is intentionally being reflected (wrongly) in attitudes towards the Trust. I have corresponded with several RST office bearers over the period and received numerous assurances of change and intention - but I've never been able to obtain any facts and have never once seen any of those intentions realised. It's become a bit of a standing joke when I repeatedly ask for RST membership numbers on various forums and never ever receive and answers - so I just keep on asking because it keeps on illustrating the underlying problem at the Trust. I have heard RST board members openly lie to the media about membership numbers in order (presumably) to gain a representational credibility that simply isn't there. That's not good enough for two reasons. Firstly because a Rangers Trust should never be founded on blatant dishonesty. Secondly because as long as we assume crediblity on a false premise, we will never have any hope of achieving genuine credibility. As long as I see reason to do so, I'll continue to comment on the RST and how it's being used. But please, don't ever confuse that with any lack of support for an effective Rangers Supporters Trust. I am NOT anti-RST and never will be. Let's all hope that one day we have a vibrant, effective RST. Run by honest and able people who show genuine respect for a large membership. Until then.....

Take away his goal against sellick and I'd be struggling to remember anything about Pedro Mendes. He's contributed about as much as Beasley, who hasn't had the benefit of actually getting a game, and his performances probably go a long way to explaining why we were able to get him in the first place. Exactly how much is he pocketing on false pretences?

Probably most of the ones that sack less successful managers.

No, only that I might have a better idea what's required than the present incumbent. but that wouldn't be difficult, would it? All you'd really need would be a spine.

Never understood the implied hierarchy that goes with "attending" games. It always seems to be used to justify someone's self-importance when all it actually means is that they attend games. Shame really.

Just another reminder of what a fukked up little shitehole this country has become. It's like continually having to wade knee-deep in sewage; you can get by but the stench is offensive and the risk of infection is always there unless you take precautions. And you know you'll never really feel clean again.

Frankly, I've no idea right now. Which in no way undermines the opinion Walter should go, it just means I have no particular idea what budget we would make available for a new management team or who might generally be considered available. Most successful Rangers managers have previously been associated with the club in some way (Struth, Symon, Waddell, Wallace) but few have had any real experience as a manager before assuming the role, so I'm inclined to think the list of possible managers might be a lot longer than the usual names that do the rounds on fans' forums. In any case, the fact is that the task doesn't fall to you or me, whoever we might fancy for the job, so the issue is actually fairly academic. As a supporter I'm looking for a more expansive approach to our style of play, an ability to foster and develop young players, a recognition of the paramount importance of an effective scouting network, a profound intent to rebuild the lost bond between club and supporters and, if possible, a willingness to rediscover the core values of the great Rangers institution pre-Murray. Not much to ask for, is it?

I really don't know whether to laugh or weep at news like that. At least it let's us know that all ambition has finally been swept from the club. I feel so privileged, having known this club when we still had pride and purpose. If nothing else, it means I don't have to pretend that retaining Walter Smith is anything but sad capitulation.

Much as I'd love to stand behind the barricades and berate the writer, there's actually precious little to argue about in that article. Everything happening at Rangers these days confirms one central truth. The present path stretches far ahead and there is no change on the horizon. And change is the one thing we need in spades right now. Sad and frustrating times.