maineflyer

No, it's not inconsistency or cheating that need attention, these are just outcomes and are based upon incompetence and dishonesty.

Conroy should never referee another SPL match this season. What a shambles of a performance, the man's a total disgrace.

Now don't be silly. The club would probably offer to fine both player and manager for offensive discriminatory behaviour.

Two factual statements - but debate will now be deflected on to Walter Smith.

It's a farce really. He's a blatant cheat and the entire competition is becoming undermined.

What? Our ones as well? Seriously, this will never end as long as we try to squeeze two nations into one country. They really do need to assimilate or go home.

You won't find anywhere else in the world where commentators belittle a team from their own country. Why don't they just go home.

There can't have been many who didn't love big Jorg Albertz in a Rangers shirt. He was certainly one of my all time favourite players. I love to quote The Hammer to celtc fans as positive proof that Rangers supporters don't have a problem with catholics at Ibrox. "Aw but he's no a real kafflick 'n at no. Probly never even been tae Dublin".

Show me this criticism of which you type? I'm merely asking a ridiculously simple question. Surely any criticism of the RST in this matter is entirely self-made by their silence and refusal to discuss the matter. Or is it my fault they treat there membership numbers as such a deep secret and lie outrageously in public about the matter? Methinks you misdirect your frustration in order to impress our new fellow member?

Fortunately, it's not really a case of who-said-what-why-when-and-to-who and sleeping dogs can safely be left in peace. Just a very simple and entirely relevant wee question that seems to have posed an undue challenge for your predecessors. Without any need for deep historical research, maybe you could herald this bright new era by providing this one basic morsel of information. Look on it like this, you'd be achieving what no one has ever achieved before at the RST ...... an honest answer about verifiable membership numbers. I understand from a couple of your colleagues-to-be that the membership database is now robust and accurate, so conveying this information should be a straightforward first task. I can hardly wait.

Did anyone from Gersnet take part in the meeting this week with a certain media organisation? If so, any chance you could pm me?

Having been invited to sell back my life memberhip, I can't claim the same right to know anymore but how about trying something new and keeping at least this small group of fans informed about the specific goals and wider strategy of the RST? How about breaking the mould and providing us with accurate current membership details? But if you supply this information, I will feel free to broadcast it, together with the source. That should make your induction fairly interesting. Christine will be mortified. Anyway, the very best of luck to you. I've nothing but admiration that you are willing to devote your time to the cause that most of us can only comment on from a distance. Bear in mind though that, having stepped up to the plate, it's entirely fair to have your contribution judged. Personally, I don't think there's a cat's chance in hell of persuading the inner circle in taht organisation to change tack. Out of interest, how did you come to be co-opted? Have you stood unsuccessfully before? Did you put your name forward or were you approached - if so, why and by whom?

Apologies in advance but it needs to be said ........... cynical, moi?

That all sounds fine but where do you go when you finally have to admit that groups like the RST are not even trying to achieve change for the better. Are you making one of those "change it from within" suggestions? As someone who has been to RST AGM's, do you honestly think those are people who would allow just anyone to join the board, let alone listen to them if they did? Do you suppose all those board members who left a couple of years ago did so because they really wanted to spend more time on other projects? The RST is neither democratic nor open to new opinion. It's a very exclusive club, for which the price of admission is complete compliance. Many of the options on your first list are simply dead ends and will achieve as much change for the better this year as they did last year. And I'm not sure it's valid to knock fans websites as a medium for getting a message across. Not everyone is comfortable being presented with an alternative viewpoint and many just want to debate what was the best goal scored with the left foot from outside the penalty area on a rainy Tuesday with the wind out of the northwest. But if you're discriminating and patient there is more to learn on fans' websites than almost anywhere else I can think of.

Thanks TB, sometimes I think I must have imagined half of the daft reactions I've had over the years from the RST. For the record, when the RST first started, I thought it was the ideal answer for increasingly disenfranchised fans and I supported it wholeheartedly as a way for ordinary fans to gain a voice the club would have to listen to - a la Liverpool, Manchester United and others. I first began to worry about the direction the Trust was taking when the quest for a seat on the Rangers board started to dominate the agenda and dialogue with the club focussed on this one objective rather than wider supporter issues. When the RST, via unofficial 'meetings', started consulting the club on what was or was not acceptable, I knew the game was a bogey and said so, along with many others. The fact that the Trust could never attract a meaningful membership amongst one of the biggest supports on the planet was testament to how it was seen and when numbers plummeted after the 2007/2008 pogroms I felt the Trust had become irrevocably corrupted. I still feel that way. If it has achieved so little after six years, just think how little it could achieve after six more.

It shows an unnecessarily defensive attitude - the reason for which needs to be shown the light of day.

What was the membership numbers you were given? I ask because I do have what I believe to be fairly good information myself and have been trying to get the RST to either confirm what I know - or show they are prepared to continue the myth.

Don't ever ask me for the lottery numbers. I know nothing. (don't say it)

Why sit on the fence and leave it to others? Decide what you want and take a stance yourself.

No - it was largely conducted in public on another forum and there were plenty other people astonished by the Trust behaviour. It's still somewhere over on Rangers Media if you care to search for it, although I use a diiferent username in that debate. Also, the Radio Scotland interviewer (I think it was Traynor but I can't remember for sure) asked the direct question in public - "how many members doe sthe Trust represent" - to which David Edgar replied "5000". This was heard by thousands and was plainly a lie. One RST board member recently admitted in public forum that the Trust had previously calculated its membership solely on the basis of members joining and took no account of those who did not renew. She didn't clarify whether the same person renewing their membership for a second year counted as two members but I took it that was what she meant. She also admited that the RST now had a different policy for calculating membership - which seems like a complete waste of time if they're not prepared to tell anyone what that membership is. Why don't you try asking them yourself. Contact them via their website and see what response you get - I've done this periodically for years and have yet to receive a single response. That way you won't have to wonder whether I'm telling you the truth or not.

I remembr a long running correspondence with Mark Dingwall, who had come hot foot from his meeting with the club and was so well informed of the UEFA directive that he insisted that not only were sectarian words banned but the TUNE itself was banned as discriminatory. Now I ask you, how is any sentient, thinking person supposed to take seriously the concept of a discriminatory TUNE? Especially when the same tune can be heard at almost every football game in the country. There have always been aspects of this "banning" that stretch both imagination and credibility. I'm not going to pretend that certain words won't likely have to be changed and this could have happened long ago if the club hadn't made such a balls-up of the whole affair in the first place. But since the club won't be open and honest in its methods, the song will return in its original form until we decide ourselves to change it, which we probably will. In the meantime some of us need to take a reality check and stop panicking like wee girls. If they threaten sanctions against the club they will in the process open the door to a sustainable form of the song. If they don't then fukk 'em. Either way, it wasn't sung today by accident - as Norris says, it's been reappearing for months - a lot of people have had enough cringing and apologising. As the boys over on VB have been saying since they set up, the fightback has started and it will be interesting to see how many others agree.

Dry yer eyes mate. Some people have been on their knees long enough. It sounded mighty good to me. Now it's been sung openly, we'll see if your theory about punishment is correct. I know what I think.

Spliff, The problem with the Trust is that it isn't an effort at all. It only seems to operate as a private club for the sole benefit of its officers and other board members. I'm all ears if you know different but years of watching that debacle persuades me it's beyond all hope. STS has considerable merit in its own right but cannot ever achieve anything so long as the club is unwilling to engage in serious discussion. If the club is prepared to change its attitude and view the support as a serious partner in the business of Rangers, then STS would be a valuable starting point. What do I suggest? New ownership and a CEO who is confident enough of his own ability to enter willingly into constructive dialogue with supporters groups. IMO, no supporter initiative will ever succeed without those preconditions, regardless of how well thought out and prepared they might be. The way things stand at the moment, the supporter is very much the junior partner, without a seat at the table and dependant entirely on two things ...... being invited to speak and being listened to. That's what I think about it - what do you suggest?

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with DA or how he performs, I think he's very competent. The issue is the media regarding the RST as the natural voice of Rangers supporters, when that organisation represents almost no one, and the RST not only being happy to go along with that misconception but prepared to knowingly falsify the size of its membership in order to sustain the myth. I think you'll agree that ain't right by any measure.

I believe I have some dubious distinction in the annals of the RST. To the best of my knowledge, I'm the only life member who has been offered (and given) his money back. The reason for this? I have persistently asked the RST for details of their membership, especially since I heard David Edgar responding to a direct question on Radio Scotland about a year ago that the RST "had 5000 paid up members". Clearly this was an intentional lie, concocted on the spot to cover up the RST's lack of constituency amongst the Rangers support. It was also utterly unacceptable and I pressed RST board members at every opportunity for their actual membership numbers. I wouldn't have thought this was an unreasonable request but emails and direct questions remain unanswered - not falsely answered, just ignored. A couple of months ago this culminated in an offer to repay my life membership if I wasn't happy with the way the RST was conducting its affairs. Out of disgust, I accepted, also thinking that this might set a precedent that would allow other disaffected life members a means of escape. So there you have it, rather than answer enquiries about its true membership numbers, the RST is inviting its life members to leave, forking out �£100 a time for the privilege of protecting this top secret information. Anything you ever needed to know about the RST is encapsulated in that one act. Excluding the convenient subterfuge of including all members who ever joined but failing to subtract those who have since left, and ignoring life members who until now have been unable to 'leave', the actual RST membership has been variously estimated at somewhere south of 500 members. Whatever the current membership, it seems to me the RST board wishes to maintain an importance in the Rangers community that it in no way deserves or justifies. It essentially has no mandate but continues to be sought out by the media to speak on behalf of the entire Rangers support - which is why I have deep reservations about the status being assumed by David Edgar and the one person who has dominated the direction of the RST since its inception and who has been almost single-handedly responsible for its miserable failure. The RST was the best hope this support ever had of achieving a meaningful relationship with the club and the wider Scottish society ..... and we blew it because a handful of ego-on-legs saw it principally as a means of self-promotion. That these people haven't been hounded out long ago is testament to the apathy that holds us all back and allows certain people to pursue such personal goals. I recently made public an estimate of the RST membership at 147 misguided souls and I have yet to receive any contrary opinion from the RST board. One day perhaps. Of course, those who left during the RST's own cultural revolution will know more than I do and may wish to contribute.