bossy

I don't need help, leaving speculation to the one side it is very very serious, obviously you are free to think otherwise.

You don't understand. Re. emails, I have no idea what you are talking about.

But, then, I am just a moderately computer literate Rangers supporter.

Emails it would appear.

Nope .... doesn't help.

Enlighten me, what is the story that is floating about?

"an internal matter that has unfortunately entered the public domain" (RST statement) as well as the names of the board members who have stepped down or been asked to step down temporarily or otherwise.

 

(See edit to previous post.)

As you clearly have no idea what this internal matter is, you are speculating for the sake of it. A remarkably futile endeavour.

The matter under investigation.

Which is ???????

This is a pathetic statement that begs more questions than it answers and therefore adds to the speculation and further weakens the credibility of the Trust.

 

They would have been better to say nothing.

What, exactly, are we speculating about?

It depends on what the issues are. Perhaps not serious for the club per se, but it could be serious for the RST.

 

 

 

Totally agree. Not relevant.

But there you are. We don't know what the issues are. Not much point in getting all worked up about something we don't actually know about is there?

It is only serious in the minds of the online community. It doesn't change the RST vote at the AGM and nobody knows what is going to happen post AGM.

Having talked to a couple of people at the Trust and having read various comments online, it looks like a couple of people on the Trust board have got into an argument and one of them has gone running to the mhedia presumably because he/she didn't get their way. Not very professional but there you are.

Naturally, the online bootboys have jumped on this with relish even though nobody actually knows the detail of what has happened.

It isn't really a story because the position of the RST with regard to the AGM issues is defined by its members who have voted on the matter. The RST board merely reflects the views of the membership.

I think the results of the vote may have been the catalyst for the present controversy.

Because he's the one named in the article? Because he's one of the few current board members that I know?

 

I'm interested to know of he is one of the board members that have resigned or whether he hasn't and there are others who have.

 

I believe that I've mentioned him in one post on this thread. Hardly "fixated"

Well, if you are a member then why not email the RST chairman and ask him?

So has Mark Dingwall stood down from the board, even if on a temporary basis?

The RST email to its members references more than one Board member. So why the fixation on MD?

McMurdo, as usual, is full of the smelly brown stuff. The RST has tried hard to see both sides of the story and has asked for - and got - meetings with both the Requisitioners and the Club. Unlike certain other groups, minutes of these meetings have been published promptly. The stance of the RST with regard to the requisitioners is reflected by the voting of its members on the RST site. In addition, the RST has worked closely with other groups such as the Assembly and the Association.

McMurdo's diatribe smacks of a divide and rule tactic. Clearly the tactic now is to paint the RST as the bogeyman even though neither McMurdo not anyone else has been able to come out with any hard facts. No doubt it will go down well in some circles but it does Rangers and the Rangers support a gross disservice.

It is a source of sadness that some Rangers fans seem to delight in sticking the knife into other Rangers fans. One might think that we already had enough enemies without also turning on our own.

If, indeed, there has been misconduct in this matter then it is for the RST and RST members to deal with it. However, in the absence of any concrete information, I prefer not to get involved in self-indulgent attacks on one of our own.

I would suggest that we hold further comments until there has been a statement from the RST and until we have some clarification on what actually happened.

I can't help wondering if the resigned board member being referred to is in any way linked to the curious case of complaints against investment fund manager John Bennett who was forced to withdraw from The Blue Knights?

If that were the case then we would be looking at a resignation that happened over three years ago.

There are, sadly, a number of Rangers fans who seem to hate Mark Dingwall more than they hate those people who have really tried to damage our club. Personally, I have interacted with him a few times and never had a problem. It would be unfortunate if the STV story was wrong and wrong because either another Rangers fan or somebody closely connected to the Board had deliberately fed them disinformation.

Stockbridge is damaged goods. In my view it isn't so much a question of whether he will resign as when he resigns.

Yes, it is pathetic. So, how do we move forward? How do we stop this from being a binary "I win, you lose" outcome?

 

Many (probably the majority) of fans want change, but there's no sign of a workable compromise emerging, which is the biggest disappointment for me.

 

Whatever happens, I will continue to support my team. I may buy individual match tickets rather than a season ticket, but I will continue to donate to the RST's Buy Rangers campaign. When the inevitable cash call comes from the Club I hope we (all groups of Rangers supporters) can get our act together sufficiently to deliver some form of elected fan representation on the Board as a condition of any further investment.

 

Trust is hard won and easily lost. I hope whoever runs Rangers after the AGM is interested in at least trying to regain mine.

I lost several thousand pounds when we went into administration. But I still put up another £500 via the RST at the IPO.

There will be no more investment from me unless 1) there is a Board I can trust, 2) there is a far greater degree of transparency than we have now and 3) Stockbridge is no longer at the club.

But thats what Im alluding to int he original point I made FS.

 

If you take both Whyte and Green they have increased their popularity within the support by attacking our media enemies - albeit it was not for altruistic reasons.

 

To this day some still champion Green for his stance and no amount of reasoning will change that.

 

What Im meaning it is clearly an emotive issue for the Rangers support - and one which if addressed genuinely would be a cert to win hearts and minds.

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. Green was a street fighter and I admired that in him. Unfortunately, he also had some difficulties with the truth, with making rash promises, with saying stupid things and, allegedly, in using our club as his personal ATM.

From my own point of view, there are more important issues to be addressed than getting into a fight with the mhedia.

Boss is worshipped and supposedly a financial expert but I have never seen him post anything remotely insightful and generally find he is someone I disagree with. I'm pretty sure he was still backing Whyte late on in the day and the guy just doesn't have a clue.

Boss is an accountant and a pretty good one at that. But, from what I can see, he tends to stick to the numbers rather than the bigger strategic picture.

Me, I'm a pretty poor accountant. But I am generally rather good at understanding what a business needs to do to be successful. While I think that McCoist seems to be sorting out the playing side of the equation, I am not convinced that either the current Board or the candidates proposed by the requisitioners are the right people to attract the millions we will need in new funding and then to use it strategically to ensure a sustainable future for the club.

Here is the fundamental issue.

At some point next year the Club is going to have to go back to the capital markets for more funding. We know that and have known it since the financial statements were released a couple of months ago.

So we need to ask the question, does the current Board have the ability to convince investors - and I include the support here - that they are suitable custodians for millions of pounds of new investment money? Because, if they do not, then we are looking at a very bleak future for Rangers.

<testily>

 

There's a good reason people use Gersnet and not RM. If anyone wants to read RM posts, could they please log onto RangersMedia?

I note you're a site writer. I don't know if you have had any articles from here posted on RM, but we certainly welcome GersNet articles on the site. We like to have all sides debated.

 

I hope you speak for yourself and not GersNet when you posted this.

Andy certainly speaks for me. There is a reason I almost never go on RM any more. If the RM style of 'debate' were to become prevalent on Gersnet then I think it would be the kiss of death for this site.

How on earth can any rational person be against Paul Murray's record as a Director, but supportive of Stockbridge's?

I fear that this debate has gone beyond any semblance of rationality.

Pretty stupid of the Vanguard Bears in what is a hostile mhedia environment to offer up hostages to fortune in this way.

I don't think its looking good for Paul Murray & Co. I'm really worried what will happen to our club if this current board is allowed to remain.

I rather fear the Paul Murray blew his opportunity ..... once again.