3909 04

I suspect the truth will be in the middle. As others have said we will run out of cash but some friend of chucks will lend us enough to get by till season ticket time. Though they will make millions out of the deal.

 

Bit that will only mean savage savage cuts in the summer or running out of money again this time in September.

 

Our board need to be engaging with king. He's offering to help here.

 

So we shouldn't accept investment from "Chuck's friends", we should only consider investment which comes from Dave King aka "Paul's friend"?

I see.

My wording wasn't very clear. Instead of saying "to be a success" I should have said "to reach it's full potential".

 

All I'm saying is that ideally you want as many people as possible singing from the same hymn sheet and on the same page and you certainly don't want the biggest and most influential Gers forum constantly rubbishing the initiative or those involved in it. That sort of sniping from the sidelines has played a part in the Trust not reaching it's full potential, so it's something that any new fan ownership initiative would do well to avoid (or at least minimise) if at all possible.

Yes, that's true. It would of course be better for the scheme if RST figures embraced it instead of endlessly parroting, "I don't see why we can't just stick with Buy Rangers..."

FF looks like it's about 50/50 already, which is very encouraging.

Ultimately Andy, I think for this CIC concept to be a success, it's going to require a situation where all of the fans interested in fan ownership unite behind it. If not all, then certainly a massive percentage and I'm extremely doubtful if that will happen without the blessing and backing of FF and the Trust.

 

It's easy to say let's all put our differences aside, but for that unity to happen in reality, then any new scheme almost certainly requires the new venture's groups and committees to be free of any individuals who are deemed by any of the interested parties as problematic or carrying any sort of baggage.

 

That's not a dig at any particular individual either because there's a whole bunch of people who would probably rule themselves out immediately, without a second thought and for the better good because they know that for such a scheme to get the maximum number of participants and as much support as possible, then it would most likely be better if they didn't even involve themselves.

With all due respect, this scheme can be hugely successful with or without the backing not only of the RST board but of every RST member.

As for FF, a cursory glance would tell you that many posters on the site back this scheme despite the stubborn opposition of the site owner and his loyal henchmen.

Apologies but by the time I got home and thawed out from Ayr and had something to eat I didn't get the report finished tonight; although I think most of it has been said here or on Twitter etc.

 

I'll get it done tomorrow.

If this is indicative of the slacker attitude which you bring to this initiative, I call on you to stand down forthwith. Begone!

This is a real issue, I agree.

 

Due to the length of the meeting, I refrained from raising a few negative issues I had; some are 'devil's advocate' but they should be examined, just the same. But we were there for nigh on 3 and a half hours and time was up!

 

There's a two sided coin in terms of what SDS consider negativity, their response is to ignore it and plough on. That's a little difficult for us, since the people who are likely to be most hostile wield an unfortunate amount of influence. Ignoring them might allow the ball to start rolling and build momentum, or it might burst said ba' before we even get to the park. It's a hard circle to square.

 

I did ask Richard from SDS to provide something concrete which we could present as proving, indisputably, that SDS were clean, on the level, etc. but didn't get much beyond a personal assurance and the legal guarantees on their website which, sadly, won't be enough for some as we all know. Richard did look a little like a cross between Craig Whyte and Kessler from Secret Army so perhaps a glance at his forbidding visage, and equally forbidding waistcoat, may be enough. I'm afraid there is going to have to be a level of trust for this to work which is not just lacking but completely absent in our fanbase.

 

Also, I wonder whether this will be practical in getting the club to the level we want it at, ie competing in Europe. The mechanism whereby HNWI can contribute helps on that front, but I am still slightly doubtful that it would accrue the cash we would need, and I wonder whether fan ownership might not forever peg the club at the level of say a Dundee Utd or a Kilmarnock. Not good enough, we'd all agree.

 

In the end the first thing we need is a level of maturity no-one has seen for as long. If it doesn't work after that (and you can see I have my doubts) at least we tried and we will have a single body without faction to show for it. That alone makes me throw my ample poundage behind the plan.

 

If someone has a personal issue with someone else, too bad. If someone is holding things back, they either need to acknowledge it or be politely but firmly told. The time for adolescent squabbling between grown ups is not only past now it was past about five years ago - easier said than done? Only if we make it so. I've no doubt at all that most everyone has stuff in their personal life going on which makes fighting about the football look like small beer indeed: despite how important Rangers is to us all it shouldn't be beyond us to take informed decisions in an adult fashion.

 

Those who don't will be seen for what they are, and hopefully accorded about as much attention as my 15 year old stomping his way back up the stairs to his PC Kingdom in the bedroom.

Interesting to note that sentiments such as the line highlighted above are now accepted on here without comment. Had I made a similar point on here any time up to the last ten days or so, a torrent of censure would have ensued. That's progress!

Remember, not everyone has to commit to that, that's just weighted averages based upon what others have achieved

 

 

 

As sergeant Wilson used to say "do you think that's wise, sir?" Not querying your capabilities but is this not likely to be controversial to some/many, or to reopen scarcely closed wounds?

 

If I am out of line I apologize, I know the history is a complex one and I was not there but just going by recent events on this forum it would seem potentially divisive.

 

Then again I may be misunderstanding those recent spats

 

Mr Dingwall has already had a pop at "loonball" Brahim's likely involvement.

 

Our man BH will need a thick skin in order to participate...

I can't be the only one who sees zero merit in this succession of ultra-lightweight McCoist puff-pieces from Dickson.

In the last week, we've had Dicko assuring us that Ally is about to give youth its chance, followed one week later with a solemn reminder that this is a time for experienced heads.

Say something interesting or better still say nothing at all, DIcko.

Agree - it keeps sounding like a "What have you done for us lately?" type thing. Two other massive differences is that King was not in a position to invest until recently, and has promised to invest in the next share offering. So why is there criticism of him not investing now? The McCall didn't invest when he made his move, King has not made his move yet. If a proper opportunity comes along and he doesn't invest, then maybe the criticism is valid.

 

This guy has made supposedly hundreds of millions of pounds and he's being criticised by Joe Blog no marks for not attempting a hostile takeover just because they think he should. Let him play his hand, first, McCall played his and it was weak, there is plenty of reason for King not to put his cards on the table just yet.

 

If there is a share issue in say a year's time and he invests millions then a lot of people are going to look pretty stupid. If there is and he doesn't then they will be vindicated if premature.

 

To me it's a bit like someone who got their round the last time it was their turn, and as it's coming around again says he'll get the next round after this. Then in the middle of the current drink, before it's time for the next one, people start calling him a tight git.

 

Anyway, I agree that the £20m he spent last time, gives him some time to decide when to invest and the right to some opinions along the way.

Odd paragraph. Is it OK for successful fans to criticise King?

No-one is forcing DK to invest. What he does with his money is his business. But if he's not a shareholder and if he has no intention of becoming one until he's happy that he can dictate terms to the board, it might be an idea for him to desist from making contributions to damaging, scaremongering stories about our finances in the gutter press.

Good, I had a question on this.

I'm struck by the dichotomy between the fans' stance on FO (eagerness to buy shares in the club) and the standpoint of Dave King (complete reluctance to buy shares). Despite this, King remains the favoured option of many fans to "invest" in the club via a new share issue, as opposed to buying existing shares and insodoing "lining spivs' pockets".

I'm not sure why fans should feel so warmly disposed to another would-be hero who, like McColl before him, talks a good game but refuses to join them in coughing up. I had just had rather a lengthy Twitter debate with Chris Graham on this very subject.

Any thoughts?

Kings being blocked from doing so. The fans must boycott IMHO.

What would be the aim(s) of any boycott? You want the Easdales to leave and hand their shares back to the club for £0, is that it?

If I could afford to lose 20 quid a month I would happily join this as a punt. It might work. I certainly hope it does. Perhaps next year if things pick up.

I would say that's a plan with which fans will identify a good deal more than with any suggestion of an out and out boycott.

Whatever your view of the Easdales, fans starving the club of funds right now is madness.

your ideas great mate. but it won't work while we are run by the self serving spivs.

 

at best they will hold you to randsom over share prices and at worst you will get absolutely no meaningful say despite spending millions.

 

actually at worst they will turn you over after spending millions with a controlled administration.

 

but good luck to you someone needs to remove them and this is as good a start as any.

So I'm clear, how do you suggest getting rids of the "spivs", seeing as you don't think DK should line their pockets and you won't join a FO scheme?

What's the plan? Are you going to close your eyes and wish really, really hard that the spivs walk out, leaving their shares behind?

Most people already do.

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the RST. Our catchy slogan:

"Hi, we're the RST. We'll ignore your views, ridicule your feedback and dismiss your criticism. But if anyone discredits you in public, it wasn't us. It must have been other fans. Join us. Please?"

Good luck with that!!

Why does it not suprise me that the RST is still seemingly frought with in-fighting?

Quite! I keep reading, "There's no need for any other body to champion FO. We already have a vehicle, the RST." Er, yes. So we do.

What genuinely fascinates me is not the rights/wrongs of this latest bout of bitter RST in-fighting; it's the complete lack of self-awareness within this troubled group. Do they really believe that after eleven years, during which they've been outclassed and left standing by their Hearts counterparts, they can recover from this latest humiliation and go on to become an influential body within the club? I don't know whether to feel pity or amusement.

But of course any negative PR aimed at the RST is caused by Jack Irvine, Rangers Media and those nasty, threatening Vanguard Bears, so you can discount every word I say.

Cheers!

Thanks for that but I think you may have to be more open if you really want to put this issue to bed. I appreciate you're (correctly) trying your best to be diplomatic but unless you fill the vacuum with facts then you may simply become forever known as 'devious splinters'. But I understand this soon becomes a tit-for-tat that no-one wins.

 

Your final paragraph is illuminating though. I'd be interested in plgsarmy's thoughts on that...

From numerous posts on FF and tweets expressing a contrary view, it's clear that many RST members, as opposed to board members, don't share this view.

Some clarification on the current RST board members' views would indeed be beneficial.

No, my identity isn't a secret. My Twitter is linked to my profile.

Hey. I thought that was you. I guessed right!

Would pro-Board ask the difficult questions?

 

I would hope any supporter organisation would elect their own spokesperson, who would then work for the Supporters no matter who the chiefs would be.

Who's pro-board, though? I'm not. Despite the CEO's highly impressive credentials, I'm waiting to be convinced. I'd happily pose difficult questions and I'm sure others would also.

My point is would anyone associated with the virulently anti-board fan groups be prepared to work alongside a board they clearly despise?

You have to support the Board??

Certainly not but would outspoken board critics want to work with them?

I, for one, am delighted the club is looking into providing a new group as there's no doubt the Assembly has struggled to really fulfil its remit.

 

It's up to us that any proposed new body is worthy of its aims rather than something as impotent and badly organised as its predecessor.

Would you consider getting involved, Frankie? Until very recently, I would have considered you an ideal candidate but then you seemed to become very anti-board....

Oh goody another club initiated group designed to destroy the rst.

 

If people won't give the easdales ticket money why would we join their club?

Hey Slinger If this new group looked like being successful, you could picket their meetings. That would show them.

When Rangers fans are reduced to calling it a cult, their views can hardly be taken seriously.

Fine, take me jovially if that makes you feel better. But the fact is while your recently departed board members are threatening each other with police action, FoH have just completed their buyout of Hearts. They've achieved more in a few months than the increasingly irrelevant RST could ever dream of, including a membership three times the size of the tiny fraction of the Rangers support which you amassed in eleven years.

But of course this is all the fault of people who want to see you closed down, isn't that right? Yep, you guys are correct. It's all us pesky fans refusing to join you who have it wrong.

Good luck with the recruitment drive, I'll watch with interest.

The RST is a vehicle to bring about fan ownership.

 

Some want to wreck it, but of course their motivations may be based more on personal feelings than on intellectual judgement.

 

The idea that Rangers fans want to crash the one vehicle that will drive us out of this mess is as disappointing as it is absurd.

 

The approximate 2,000 members of BuyRangers have staked their claim.

 

The RST will be here for as long as it takes.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

It sounds like your priority is the retention of the RST as a body rather than the well-being of the club. I would suggest that is the RST's main problem. No non-member of the RST gives a damn whether or not this troubled group continues to exist. Your tired and predictable "some want to wreck it" whine misses the point entirely. Far too often, the RST falls back on this absurdly ill-conceived view as justification for its continuation.

If fan ownership ever occurs at Rangers, and I would welcome it fully, it will happen despite the RST, not because of it.

Until you accept and face up the fact that your view is utterly at odds with reality, the RST will remain a small fraction of the size of the Hearts Trust. What a tragic strapline for a Rangers fans group to carry.

It's almost reassuring that the Rangers board took a dim view of the representations of the fan groups.

 

That's almost a ringing endorsement of their worth.

 

There is no more discredited group in the Rangers family than the Rangers board of directors.

And what of the latest in a long line of very public fallouts between RST board members? Is that a further "endorsement of their worth", or a clear indication that their time is up?

Club led initiative ?

I believe so, mate. I'm told the board took a very dim view of the organised fan groups' efforts to oust them and are looking to set up an entirely new body.

Whilst neither Mr Smith not Mr Dingwall (both of whose resignations I called for at the time) have since resigned for whatever reasons; I am astonished to find that two of the three current Office Bearers are the same people who were involved in the 2010 financial mismanagement and subsequent cover up.

 

I have considered rejoining the Trust, because despite all that has happened, I still believe in the principle of fan involvement/ownership/membership scheme; but could not possibly consider doing so whilst that is the situation.

This is exactly where I am also. I believe this latest row, with Mr Dingwall's frankly unbelievable claim to be the victim while simultaneously resigning, along with the advent of a new club-led supporters group initiative will end the RST as a meaningful body. While this is very unfortunate, when you consider the sheer volume of incidents and the extent of the bitterness between the warring parties, I would say the end has been on the cards for some time,

I've previously acknowledged the efforts and hard work of those involved and I'm happy to do so again but I really cannot see where the Trust can possibly go from here.