maineflyer

You could be right, I'm just not sure what good the curtain is doing for anyone in such a scenario. Sometimes you can see the point of a subterfuge, a misdirection, call it what you want. In this case, it's not easy to see what it brings to anyone's table. In any case, it would be a bit of a relief to know that the buying of Rangers isn't entirely fiction - I don't suppose you can add any substance to the claim?

You mean ...... it's not the only show in town" after all?:devil:

I know it's a serious business but this extract from the website of Mr Duffy's personal acquisition, Iolife, makes amusing reading. It might not add much to his business credibility however. Enjoy.... the technology that makes iolife so successful The iolife system utilises a method known as “Controlled Ionically Transferred Effect” (C.I.T.E.) in which an electronic effect is transferred through the air to the patient to be treated. Although it is not suggested in the title, it should be stressed that the philosophy behind the technique is based on the concept of acupuncture linked to certain atmospheric electric phenomena and coloured light. Anywhere in the lower atmosphere certain radioactive processes take place all the time, and by these processes atmospheric ions or air ions are produced. When air ions land on a conductive surface, such as the human skin, they give off their charge and cause a current through the body. If this current is caused by the naturally occurring ions the current is extremely weak and cannot be measured by conventional methods, but has to be integrated over time. If, however, a needle is inserted in the skin, as is usually the case in traditional acupuncture treatment, the needle may act as a kind of antennae and this has been demonstrated to increase the current to a given area in the region of 20%. And it is my belief that this effect is actually what sometimes makes acupuncture work. The concentration of air ions in our environment is usually of the order of a few hundred per cc (maybe 20% more positive than negative), and the concentrations may change with time as well as with location. It is this uncertainty that makes the result of traditional acupuncture treatment so unpredictable. With the iolife technology the air ions are produced in our electrical equipment, but it should be stressed that these ions are identical to the naturally occurring ions. By creating the ions ourselves, we can control the concentration and also choose the polarity (positive or negative). We can spray an area to be treated with a shower of ions much bigger than with traditional acupuncture. As mentioned above the ions plating out on the skin are neutralized, and thereby cease to exist as ions. So the ions never enter the body! The ions give off their charge once they land on the skin and this creates a current through the body. This current is measured and integrated by the iolife equipment which records the exposure as well as the total dose. In the iolife system, the ions are combined with coloured light. This combination produces heat, stimulates vital energy lines, aids circulation of the blood, and decreases anaemia, asthma, diseases of the larynx, certain skin diseases (such as eczema) and chronic coughs. It stimulates the sensory nervous system, aids the healing of wounds and is used in treatment of chronic infections and insufficiency diseases. John F Wetling Wetling is one of three directors of the UK company, based in Wakefield. There are two other directors, who are also the only shareholders.

Wabashcannonball, right now I'm closer to your interpretation of events than most others I've read. This idea being floated by Graham Duffy is an easy sell, particularly for journalists like Darryl King (BarryBaldy?) and others who benefit from the assumption there's a real game in the air. Personally, I find it more realistic to view the complete lack of substance as the most reliable guide to what will come of this. Your Walter Mitty comment may not be far from the truth but time will certainly tell a lot about the players making the most noise at the moment. I also mentioned in the thread about Murray's most recent statement that he still seems to be the man with the plan, much as that will pour water on a number of arpirations. More importantly, Murray may also be the one player who is happiest with the slowest progress. I can't help thinking this has a long way to run yet and the catalyst for a deal hasn't even appeared on the scene yet.

Good post mate, and welcome.

Sorry, can't let you away with that. Firstly, I wouldn't know Mark Dingwall or Stephen Smith if I met them, which I never have. Never even spoken with them. I have no personal axes to grind with them or any other RST board member - and I don't come across them in either a personal or professional sense. You have no basis to judge my contribution as "rather bitter" and, frankly, neither those individuals nor the RST in general make sufficient impact in my life to generate such an emotion. That you chose to hang out this sort of personal flag says everything to me about where you've come from in a debating sense. You don't need to perceive anything, honestly or otherwise. I'm telling you categorically that I am not anti-RST. If you had bothered to check, you would see the evidence that I have been posting the same thing for a very long time and have been entirely consistent in this point. Which prompts the question why you would continue to skew a debate by denying what has been placed explicitly in front of you? After all, as you posted elsewhere with respect to the RST, "Criticism should be welcomed and taken on board" My advice, which few should object to, is to stick to the facts and stick to a more honest approach in these matters. Much as you want to promote your personal perspective, which no one is denying you, please don't try to do this by casting aspersions where they don't belong.

There's no great pleasure in continually repeating the same thing but this notion of anyone being "anti-RST" really does need refuting. Some things most certainly are being criticised but not the existence of a Rangers Supporters Trust. I have yet to find any Rangers supporter, posting on any message board, who has expressed hinself/herself as anti-RST. Not once. If any of those posting here know different then please show the example. Otherwise, please stop the defence of a false premise. What is under scrutiny here and what I, among others, are vigorously critical of is the performance of the Trust, together with the strategy and conduct of some of its leading lights. No one wants an end to the RST - quite the opposite. We want to see an end to the dysfunctional nonsense that has hobbled its achievements, particularly during the last two year, and we want to see a RST growing in size and influence. I have several times advocated that the RST should be the only body representing Rangers fans and an end to all other existing organisations. But not until it is flushed clean of the personality cult that currently drives and ruins it. So please, let's all stop this shite about an "anti-RST" sentiment that simply does not exist. The RST is not Mark Dingwall or Stephen Smith and the sooner they accept that fact, the sooner the RST can start functioning again.

He'll speak for himself but i think it's about the attacks being personal rather than relating to the journalist's attacks on Rangers. I think the fans' organisation should have done more to take on specific journalists but any real criticism in this respect should be reserved for the Rangers board of directors, spineless gits.

Really good point. We had a wonderful opportunity in the early/mid 1990's to set in place a system of finding and developing young player. It's one of my greatest regrets that Rangers didn't do that when they had the chance. As you mention with Advocaast, this probably does need to be driven by the manager and we're probably talking about Walter Smith's greatest shortcoming.

That's it then, the Weegie wins.

See, it's this lack of convention that's fukked us up here. I'm seeing fitba and hearing fitbaw but ober in you corner its resonating as fitbah. I wonder what Walter hears ...... hoofbaw?

Wonderful post Craig. Right to the heart of it.

Fine words. However, the RST declined from just under 4000 members to nearer 1000 over the space of about three years. For an organisation where influence comes directly from it's constituency, I'm not sure I'd so glibly describe that as "continuing to grow". Strange how the truth is still so elusive. It's a little like UCB now finding his questions rather less necessary and confiding to having a broaderpicture of the resignation issue than expected, drawn out of at least partial consultation with some of those involved on both sides. But whatever that knowledge amounts to it's not being shared apparently, by anyone. This doesn't apply to me now of course that the RST refunded my life membership rather than have me justified in debating membership numbers, but I'm aware there are current RST members who would very much like to know what their elected representatives have been up to. Mind you, I'm not sure just how many of the current outfit have actually been elected by anyone.

As I posted elsewhere this morning with respect to blanket RST calls for an apparently-newly-discovered commodity called unity.............. I know one thing to be true. You don't pull people together by announcing that people need to pull together. All that achieves is the writer being able to display his credentials to an audience. Actually pulling people together means removing existing obstacles. Getting beyond mere expressions of aspiration, how do the unifiers amonst us propose that happens, in hard practical terms, without those obstacles first being removed? Could it be that some of those they infer are contributing to division are actually those who are trying hardest to remove those obstacles?

Oh I tried that for years with no luck either. Mind you, if I were a board member of the RST I think I would have made myself abundantly aware of the circumstances around the most profound event of it's short history. What is this anyway, a plea for clemency? Ignorantia juris non excusat.

I thought the accepted spelling was fitba. Maybe an apostrophe? Or is the double-U somehow a more appropriate replacement for a double-L. These things cause me no end of trouble.

I expected that and I won't deny it. But I will admit to becoming hugely jaundiced about all things RST and only the knowledge that I'm 100% right about it keeps me going.

Wait a minute, there's absolutely nothing in that article about the RST or fan ownership schemes. I hope this post about football isn't the start of a trend.

OK, OK, it was tongue in cheek. Nevertheless, since UCB is obviously keen on acquiring further understanding, I'm sure those such as yourself wouldn't stand in the way of his quest.

There's something faintly ridiculous about that question .... but not surprising since it encapsulates the essence of what the RST has always misunderstood. UCB, you chose to accept an invitation to be co-opted on to the board of the RST. Presumably no one forced this upon you. In my world it would be reasonable to think you took this conscious decision with a purpose in mind and since you first appeared over our horizon, some of us have encouraged you to reveal what you believed that purpose to be. So far you've offered observations on collective responsibility, semantics about aims and objectives, and you have continually sought opinion from others as to what you should do. Here's my take on it. If you didn't know what you meant to achieve when you joined the RST and if you still don't know how you will address the issues arising since your elevation then I would start questioning why you're there at all. I don't mean this to be antagonistic but it's hard to draw many other conclusions. You're obviously well respected on this website and many established members afford you a great deal more leeway than is generally the case. I believe they do this because they wish to maintain influence and access to an RST that is otherwise closed to them. In return it might be useful if you were to tell us/them what you intend to do, rather than simply asking for advice. I'd just like to add that there is no need to be in the dark about the resignations issue just because it didn't happen yesterday. Frankie was intimately involved - you know that - why not get in touch, talk privately, I'm sure he has all the information you could possibly need.

The issue of "the resignations" is unavoidable I'm afraid, crystallising as it does so many of the problems that continue to dog the Trust's standing among a large part of the Rangers fanbase. That it happened at all was bad enough. That it left the Trust compromised was hugely disappointing. But worst of all is the way in which rehabilitation of that organisation is made impossible by the constant side-stepping of this and other issues. It's unhelpful to decry this as "this old resignations issue". This sort of language simply ensures the situation remains as polarised as ever.

While entirely understandable, I don't think those who did resign made their best contribution by remaining silent on the underlying issues. By behaving impeccably, they have in fact allowed the Trust to remain compromised and two further years to be wasted. Let's hope that the coming weeks don't give even more reasons for regret.

I've no interest in his personal adversities or his success in business. As a Rangers fan the only issue for me has been his rank dishonesty and the fact that after twenty years he has left the club in far worse condition than he found it. Unfortunately the only owner we have is David Murray and until something tangible appear to take his place, we'll have to lean on half-truths and speculation.

More importantly, the conditions need to be created where the bank no longer has any interest in being involved. That would be good for Rangers and the bank. However it exactly came about, and there seem to be varying opinions about this, the fact is that basic financial weakness lies at the root of it and I see that as our challenge rather than the bank exerting influence over club affairs.

Yes, I have the evidence. No I didn't say most - I said more - read it. Like I said, stop the dishonesty, you don't have to make up everything.