3909 04

But did you just "point it out" or did you get into a slanging match ? Not suggesting the latter, just wondering - because it would be very unlike us to ban somebody, or even issue a "go somewhere else" warning without good cause. Being a mod I am obviously biased but I think we take a very, very relaxed approach to censorship on this forum. We probably actually let things go further than we should before we issue a ban.

 

As for the "go somewhere else" thing - like Frankie I cant recall your incident but on occasion we have had people make comments about going somewhere else and we have simply said "fine, we dont hold people here against their will" - we had somebody (cant remember who) call me Hitler earlier this year and he eventually had to ASK to be banned, which we did according to his wishes. He thought we were keeping him around to "make membership number look better than they are".

 

I could be wrong, but if you were moderated that way I suspect there would have been good reason for it. Hopefully so anyway !

The subject of trolling and de-railing threads had come up. The mod had asked users to desist, to which I said:

Perhaps you should consider dealing with obvious "trolling" threads in the literal sense, ie threads designed to provoke an emotional response, rather than threatening to censure those who pass comment on them?

I find it's always beneficial to attack the root cause of a malaise, rather than treating the symptoms.

Just a suggestion.

The mod replied:

With respect, I know exactly what the issue is here.

Now, either stick to our rules or go elsewhere. That goes for all who'd prefer to spoil the discussion of valid topics.

That was me told!!

Anyway, no harm done. I just cheekily wondered if I was pigeonholed in either of the categories mentioned earlier today...

I think it's fair to say every Rangers website has their fair share of fifth columnists or even just Rangers minded trolls - both the type of people I personally can't understand.

 

Now, you either allow them to dictate the narrative or you moderate strongly (but fairly) to isolate such people. It's not overly difficult to do on a smaller forum such as this but I do sympathise with the admin at FF and RM where they have much more traffic.

 

It's sometimes easy to forget when online that arguably we're a bit more militant than offline bears so even the most liberal of fans on a conservative forum such as this can appear to be hard-line to an ordinary supporter who's just interested in going to the games.

Hmm. Presumably it was this selfsame "strong (but fair)" moderation you were displaying earlier this year when I pointed out another poster's trolling on this site? Your response was to issue me with the following stark warning: "Now, either stick to our rules or go elsewhere."

As you're the mod, obviously you can adjudicate as you see fit. I'm just wondering, though; does that make me a fifth columnist or a Rangers minded troll?

It seems that the boycott is costing us more than it's costing Dundee Utd. I thought that the point of it was to make them suffer and not us.

Roughly how many Celtic fans do you think will turn up to contribute to Erskine, mate?

Bigger picture and all that.

The fans have been saying it from the start of the season.

 

I think it's correct that the club didn't come out and make all sorts of statements about things that may have never happened. It has to assess them on a case by case and time by time basis.

That's true, the fans have been crystal clear about their intentions from the start of the season. There would have benn no point in CG stirring things up by playing with conjecture in terms of what he might do in the event that we drew an SPL club.

As for where we draw the line? I suggest when the first of the SPL conspirators goes bust, preferably Dundee Utd. Then CG publicly states, "That's what you get when you fuck with Rangers. Who's next?"

Thank you for that. Perhaps if you are near the WRC on Saturday you could get Shorerdbear to buy you a pint. Mine is a Coke - diet of course.

It's a deal! ;-)

what about the rest ? all doing well financially ?

next season really could be the armageddon if CG sticks to his guns & refuses to sign any new SKY TV deal and SPL don't replace a sponsor like CB.

That was the point I made earlier. Lawwell has convinced SPL clubs and the Scottish media that financial meltdown in the Scottish game is worth it as long as Celtic enjoy a good CL run this year.

Andrudolph Dickson‏@rfc_dickson

The BBC fail to disappoint in their latest piece today with yet more mumbo jumbo about Rangers being a new club, spreading lies for fun now

I'm surprised the BBC can find time to write about Rangers.

Is this what they get up to when they're prevented from exposing children to paedophiles and televising it?

i know john macmillan personally and hes anything other than hapless. quite the opposite in fact. the writer would do well to bugger off with his narrow minded opinions.

 

such slanderous remarks should be removed from our site along with 3909 04

Seeing as you know him, could you please ask him to stop speaking to journalists in the name of Rangers supporters?

Thanks.

James Cook‏@BBCJamesCook

HMRC say they will seek permission to appeal the so-called "big tax case" decision which went n favour of Rangers Football Club.

Cue Alex Tomson creaming his green, white & gold boxers.

You do wonder how blind people were last summer. It was always going to be just one winner in the whole Rangers-SPL fiasco. The team who gained most by a) becoming instant title favourites for years to come (getting the best prize money along the way) and b) reaching the CL for years to come. For at the end of the day, only they will receive any significant money while the rest - as they always did - will simply look on. Lambs led to the slaughter ...

And that Fate smiled upon them as they reached the money-raking CL group stages and let them win the Barca game puts the icing on the cake. They will be dancing on the graves of other SPL teams and eventually the SPL oblivious of the carnage created ... ere Fate will strike them down too. Maybe not this season, but soon enough.

Aye but it was worth it for that Euro glory night at Sellik Park. Made the hairs stand up on the back of, err, Aberdeen fan Richard Gordon's neck.

It will be worth all the SPL clubs going bust for that night alone, as every SPL chairman will tell you.

My assumption was on Rangers fans attending the game win or lose. A non attendance is risky to the fact we lose the game because of the obvious, referee decisions on crowd reactions young 'Gers losing the plot because of again crowd reactions, this game is a big step forward if you'd rather not be there to push us on then that will help the opposition no doubt.

 

Pushing for a boycott might harm them but it wont help our team and I'm exasperated at your agenda.

The rest of us are several times more exasperated at your failure to see or even acknowledge the bigger picture.

5k Bears at the game wouldn't ensure a win on the park; it might help but then it might not, just like the crowd didn't help when we lost to QOS or ICT.

Not one single Bear attending the game, though, sends a message of deafening proportions to our haters in the SPL: "Don't fuck with our team or we will help ensure you go bust."

The outcome of the game means next to nothing here, the principle far outweighs the benefit of a Cup run.

"Rod?"

"Yes, Peter?"

"Fetch the Mr Sheen and a shammy. I've left a nice, steaming turd on your desk. Get polishing."

"Yes, Peter. Right away. Thank you, Peter"

What's the RST's view of a possible boycott?

I think you will find that RM is not populated by banned FFers but that many of them are in a self-imposed exile.

 

There are also quite a few, myself included, who post on several Rangers message boards.

Fair points.

Plgsarmy, some answers for you:

If you are saying that people judged a bid because it was backed by the RST rather than what was best for the Club then that is very sad. Of the bids we knew about, TBK's bid was the one, in our opinion, that offered the best chance for the Club's future.

My point was & is the backing for TBK emanating from FF/RST's best-known figure was absurdly OTT and raised suspicions of his motives.

Viewd by whom? A handful of people on a couple of websites? The Board currently has 16 members who would find the above comments highly insulting. MD has never even been an office-bearer in the RST. Do you think we cancel meetings if Mark can't attend or defer decisions until we can check if it's okay with him? I've disagreed with Mark on many occasions and sometimes I've actually won.

Glad to hear it, keep it up. Don't let one man dominate proceedings, it's unhealthy.

As stated previously, it has been RST policy, since 2008 that we put things out firstly by e-mail to members and then onto our site. If people then choose to post them on other websites they are free to do so but we normally only take questions from members. If we have to wait for whoever we were meeting to approve minutes then so be it. As Bluedell says, it's either that or no meetings.

Be as open & honest with all members as you can is my advice.

I wouldn't have any objection, in principle, to this although I think 4 years is too short. Having said that, I would say that, on average, most people don't stay that long. Sometimes it can take over other aspects of your life.

Again, staying any longer leads to questions of long-standing board members' motivation for doing so.

I'm not aware of us having done that. We were always very careful to keep the elected/ co-opted mix to what we were allowed under the rules and last year we changed to the Supporters Direct model rules. This was approved at our AGM in 2011.

This refers to MacMillan being foisted on the RST members, which was some years ago.

It's an area that most of us don't really want involved in if truth be told. It can affect both your family and working life and not in a good way. David Edgar will tell you about that. If we can get more volunteers to do it then great and we will give them all the training they need but it isn't easy. We already do have contacts with Bear-friendly journos, most of which you won't hear about. As for the 5 Live comments, I don't recall who went on and whether it was as an official RST response to being asked but it was clear at the time that Rangers fans were being accused. I do hope you're not holding Jeanette Findlay up as someone whose behaviour we should aspire to.

It was Stephen Smith. There was nothing wrong with what he said on the show but he should have answered 5Live's request for a quote by directing them to Strathclyde Police or Special Branch as they are better-placed to comment on terrorist matters than the RST. jeanette Findlay is a poisonous snake but Celtic's PR runs rings ours, including the two Trusts.

I've told you our policy, I can't say much more. We don't have hatred, playground or otherwise, of any website. There are a small number of posters on both these websites who have tried to smear both the RST and individual Board members by speading lies and innuendo. They hide behind monikers but I I know who most of them are, even although I've never met most of them. I don't even hate them, I'm just sorry that they feel that they have to act this way. As for forgetting threats and insults and moving on, I find it difficult to forget someone wanting to pump carbon minoxide into a room I was in but perhaps that's just me. However, I blame an individual for that, not a website.

I've stated my policy on Rangers fans threatening other Rangers fans. I detest ex-friends fighting, life is way too short, and I've offered several times to broker a peace between the principal combatants. I would have to say it's Mr D who is less keen than the other side on burying the hatchet and moving on.

If you can point to the posts where either Gunslinger or me said those words then please do so. Post numbers will suffice

You could have a look at #82, #94 & #104 for a taste of GS' views of FF. Then try #129 for a reminder of your views on the subject of the RST sans MD...

Thanks also for your answers. I respect the effort you personally have put into the Trust over the years and I wish you nothing but the best.

Only certain online elements say this though. To be frank, and I appreciate you don't know me so can't judge and only have my word on here: There is absolutely no chance I will be anyone's yes man or little helper. On top of that the board, except three other members, are all new and have only served one year or less, myself included.

 

BD's comments are right that he serves on too many other committees. However, Mark doesn't have a normal 9-5 job and is able to attend these meetings. It's an easy fix for us and from what I can see his presence is no greater or less than that of his board position.

 

Before my time so won't comment on past events when I am not aware of the facts. However, although the RST is not perfect, it's social media channels make it the most open group within the three fan groups. All reasonable questions (meaning questions without abuse or hyperbole) are answered. One of my aims was to make us more user friendly and it's working in small steps. We have three ways to get in contact and plenty to use it.

 

Our AGMs are public knowledge, can you say that of the other two groups?

 

Term is two years as voted in at last year's AGM when the Trust adopted SD's new rules. Maximum term is 12 years, and I think that's too long. I could live with four years personally.

 

Only three can be co-opted which is in line with the constitution. No changes have been made to the constitution without consulting the members at an AGM. Co-opting folk can help the board in the short term. The next AGM that individual has to be elected in by the membership.

 

Don't recall the radio 5 live phone in. Planting stories don't work when the media refuse to discuss anything anti-Celtic. Any press release reaches the media and is mostly quoted throughout and the statements go down well with the support.

 

This goes both ways: Will the smear campaigns stop?

 

That said, I do't care much for FF or people's petty personal differences. I have heard plenty from both side for and against. My low post count would prove that I don't use FF much.

 

So now you have had your say on one fan group, will you balance it up with your say on VB's actions towards fellow Rangers fans, RM's obsessive 20 page threads on RST? Or any comment for the other two groups?

 

Cheers!

Thanks for the answers! My views, as requested:

VB: no group should ever threaten other Rangers fans. It's simply doing our enemies' work for them. I'll have no part of that. But several of the most die-hard Rangers fans I've ever met are on VB and I know the site has a place, reflecting the more hardline wing of the Rangers support.

RM: a "curate's egg" of a site. Several good threads and a lot of anger-fuelled rants. I would say it seems to be populated almost exclusively by banned FFers, many of whom tell wholly believable tales of being banned for the most minor infractions.

The Assembly: a spoiler group set up by the club to spike the guns of the fledgling Trust. I don't know their top guys but all I can say is Andy Kerr was absurdly irresponsible last year and Ross Blyth made a total dick of himself on Real Radio when he obediently read SDM's prepared script to attack the RST's We Deserve Better campaign. An irrelevance.

The Association: I can't help, err, associating this group with their rather hapless spokesman, John MacMillan. I know more about NARSA, where I have friends, but whom I feel can allow themselves to be too easily influenced by their proximity to senior figures at the club, such as Bain.

BTW if it was you who suggested we might share a cold beer, the answer is any time. :-)

I said its perfectly possible to disagree with the rst on ff and it is.

 

if you disagree with lies innuendo and homophobia then of course you will be banned.

What's this homophobia thing? It's been mentioned several times; what am I missing?

Truth is, the Green consortium were the only ones that went about the bidding process professionally. They properly evaluated the opportunity, they lined up the investment funds, they put management in place, they were realistic about a CVA or a Newco, they paid as little as they needed to and nobody saw them coming.

 

At the bidding stage, the support does not have a role unless they have money in the bank. I urged the RST as long ago as the first Parks proposal that they needed to start building funds is they wanted a seat at the table (actually, I was telling Colin Glass the same in the early years of the RST). From that perspective, the RFFF was a huge tactical error because it diverted funds from a strategic investment to a day to day operations fund.

 

Beyond their role as customers of the club, the importance of the support was their ability to subscribe to a future share issue. This was true for all the bidders and not just the BKs. Thus, it was a smart move by the BKs to try to get the main supporters organisations onside. And, lets remember, it was not just the RST. It was the three main organisations who were working together. The BK bid did not fail because of the presence of the RST or the other organisations. It failed because it could not come up with - or was unwilling to come up with - cold hard cash.

 

I remain convinced that a strong supporter shareholding is important for the future of the club. However, as we move forward to the future share issue, it seems we are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. Under David Murray we were 10,000 small shareholders who were hopelessly fragmented. It seems that the RST is the only organisation which is trying to build a small shareholders grouping. It is all very well to be anti-RST or anti-Dingwall but what is your realistic and viable alternative?

I actually agree with a lot of that. TBK's bid failed because it was unrealistic, delusional and cheap. They should have had the backing of a far wider spread of the fan base but, as Gunslinger points out, they didn't even have the backing of the majority of users on FF; a site whose owner was openly and unashamedly pushing their bid at the expense of any alternative. FF/RST's excessively saccharine backing for TBK put off other Rangers fans. The reason, whether or not you want to hear it, is because any cause backed by those organisations' main man immediately raises suspicions about his motives and the extent of his involvement. Again, that's not directly why TBK bid failed but had they enjoyed the backing and views of a larger section of the fan-base, their bid may have been more realistic than the rather pitiful attempt they managed.

And as for my views, I'm not anti-RST but I'm critical of the current, rather tired set-up. What is my alternative? Here are some suggestions for a start:

Constitution: the perception of the RST board is it's made up of one shot-caller and 11 hand-picked helpers who are allowed to stay as long as they tow the party line but are jettisoned as soon as they stray. Think how Spitting Image portrayed Thatcher as a hard-as-nails dictator and her Cabinet as spineless wimps and you get the idea of how the RST board is viewed; rightly or wrongly.

Openness: my memories of RST matters on FF are of threads started by Trust figures advising users that an RST/RFC meeting was imminent. Cue much interest and suggestions for what should be discussed. What then followed, every single time, was an ominous silence lasting days. No feedback post-meeting, just, "We'll tell you when we can, the minutes haven't been approved yet". Rangers fans don't appreciate being treated like mushrooms, don't do it.

Term of office: every RST office-bearer should serve a term of 2 years at a time, with a max of 2 terms per person before stepping down. No exceptions. I can't see why anyone would object to this.

Co-opting figures onto board: don't agree changes to the RST constitution without consulting the membership. Even if the board think it's a great idea and will help achieve long-held aims, don't do it.

Media/PR strategy: devise and implement a sensible approach to media relations. Don't let just anyone talk to the press, especially not a well-meaning but miles-off-the-pace septuagenarian. Pick 1 or 2 people and train them in the murky art of PR. Brief friendly press figures, plant anti-Celtic/anti-SFA/anti-SPL stories. Don't just talk to enemies every time they ask "because it's important to get our side of the story out." It's far more important to pick stories which can show RFC in a positive light and speak out on them. Don't get drawn into stories which can only damage RFC, like a phone-in about Lennon receiving nail-bombs which the RST joined on 5Live. Why, FFS? What did that story have to do with Rangers? Did Jeanette Findlay comment when Nacho received death threats or Kyle Bartley was racially abused on Twitter? Get PR smart, now.

Link/association with one web-site and opposition to others: the intrinsic link between RST & FF has to end, as does the playground hatred for VB/RM. These are grown men in their 40s and older, FFS. I'm sure they all have reasons for not talking to each other any longer but let's forget about "threats" or insults and move on.

I've said my piece on this for now but just to summarise, I can't accept the Gunslinger, "FF is a fabulous site, full of open, un-hindered debate where criticism of the RST is welcomed" nor the plgsarmy, "I can't say I've ever given any thought to how the RST would be without MD" viewpoints. If such views continue to appear on here unchallenged, I may return to dispute them.

Are these rhetorical questions?

Not in the least.

You've had several pops at me on this thread. Here's your chance to reveal your hand. What's your story, Mr Picky? Why do you have such a hard-on for me?

That's your game and the agenda's quite clear.

 

Your points are getting thinner as you go along. Though do keep it up as it's humouring me with all the petty conspiracy stuff that only emanates from two areas of the Rangers online community. You focus on your agenda and RST will focus on theirs which is clearly stated on the website.

The only thing I possess which becomes increasingly thinner over time is my hairline.

So you claim I have an agenda. Doesn't PLGsarmy similarly have an agenda, albeit the flip-side of mine?

Why is one poster's pro-RST/TBK agenda automatically more palatable to you than that of another poster who happens to hold an opposing viewpoint?

What exactly is your own agenda here, Mr Humour Man?

Fan ownership is an admirable model but for the administration process it was always going to be about cold hard cash to satisfy the creditors. TBK just came across to me as believing they had a devine right to buy us because of the Rangers men tags. The CVA or nothing stance was arrogant in the extreme especially considering the revenue's attitude towards us.

 

The share issue can be a step to fan ownership but sadly it seems to me too many are caught up in conspiracies for it to go well.

 

I'm sure Paul Murray is a nice enough guy, find him to be a bit of a media whore and like many others never tried hard enough to stand up to David Murray.

 

But I certainly don't hate him or anyone really, I chat to the RST twitter after all.

Correct. The ethnic origin or the football team supported by the bidders meant precisely nothing to D & P.

From memory, 20% of TBK's total bid was based on Rangers reaching the CL group stages in 2013 and the CL 1/4 finals in 2014.

Say no more.

It's nothing like the truth and if you believe that then you are beyond help.

I disagree.

Unfortunately for you, so did Duff & Phelps, who continually accepted other bids in preference to TBK's.

I'm very sorry but it would appear those who mattered accepted my version of events ahead of yours.

If I'm beyond help, where exactly does that leave you and the RST?

They say that hindsight is 20-20.

 

And so it appears with this discussion.

 

I was sort of watching from the sidelines but, at the time, the BK bid was the only one that we had any information about. The little we knew about the other bidders was generally not very positive.

 

Again, at the time, I thought that, conceptually, the BK bid hung together pretty well. By that, I mean that I understood the structure and felt that, if it went through, it had a realistic chance of putting the club on a solid footing and recapitalising it. Also, at the time, the BKs were offering a significant element of supporter participation so it was not unreasonable that the RST would be supportive as it was a move towards their overall goals.

 

Personally, I was extremely suspicious about Kennedy given his record at Stockport and I got into more than a few arguments on FF as a result (no banning however). When he got into bed with the BKs I began to wonder if I had been wrong about him. Sadly, I think I was right.

 

What we did not know at the time was 1) the BKs had no money of their own and had not lined up any source of financing other than Ticketus 2) Kennedy was only interested in buying us on the cheap (which makes you wonder about his motives). When push came to shove there was no substance behind the BKs. But, again, that is easy to see with hindsight.

 

But, frankly, the other bidders were not any better. With that perfect hindsight vision, it is easy to criticise the RST for backing the BKs but, from their point of view, it was the logical stance. And where was the rest of the support when all this was happening? At least the RST was out there with a perspective.

What little info we had about other bids was spun as negatively as possible in order to make TBK bid look good.

As we've heard, TBK had approached RST to discuss their plans. It seems clear now those plans included supporter representation, which explains why Dingwall & co practically came in their pants every time they mentioned TBK. (Self-interest?? Perish the thought!!)

TBKs had pots of money, they just chose not to invest it in buying Rangers.

The other bidders were almost all better, which explains why their bids were recommended ahead of the increasingly wretched TBK bids.

TBK should have been the preferred bidders but they blew it. Their association with Dingwall & the RST hindered rather than aiding their bid. That's because any party backed unequivocally by MD naturally becomes suspect in the eyes of the wider support.

The above may not be palatable but, as Bill Hicks said, "It's the fuckin' truth".

Hatred no but I had no time for a bunch of rich 'Rangers men' trying to get us as cheap as possible. I was happy for any bid to get accepted and was a bit pissed off at the idea of TBK being entitled to buy us.

 

Miller's plan involved a CVA and merging the companies anyway, but HMRC would have scuppered that like they would have done any CVA (barring one really pushing the boat out like 30 million plus), so I don't see what's the point in arguing against the new company structure when it turns out it was the only option we had.

Spot on. FF/RST were instinctively suspicious of each and every bid; Ng, Miller, Kennedy, Green, etc but they gushed in praise of TBK's bid from the outset. Who can forget the thread started on FF by the site owner himself to announce news of, "A brilliant deal struck by Paul Murray" which amounted to TBK handing Ticketus £10m when just a few weeks later it became clear they were owed nothing by the club? Brilliant indeed.

From the off, TBK's bid stank to high heaven. An ex-Rangers director, stating simultaneously that he had cut the debt at the club while knowing nothing of the club's finances and so was in no way responsible for EBTs, heading up a consortium consisting of himself, Douglas Park, Ticketus and the RST, with Mark Dingwall acting like a commission-hungry estate agent assuring everyone what a great deal it was? Pardon me for not swooning with excitement at that lineup.

At very stage, FF/RST furiously excoriated all bids except TBK's, for whom they barely stopped short of fellating Paul Murray in public, and they expressed utter incredulity when other Rangers fans hesitated to do the same. And you guys seriously wonder why Mr Dingwall's involvement throughout the bid process looked a little suspicious?

More fake innocence from FF/RST, I'm afraid.

He probably finds your username to be offensive too, but each to his own.

In which case, I won't display my username on a banner to express my opposition to Bocanegra returning to the club.

But in the event that I change my mind and do so, I'm heartened that I can count on the support of the RST board and the Gersnetonline forum in denying any accusations of sectarianism in the displaying of such a sentiment at Ibrox.

After all, anyone who would get upset at a banner displaying my username is simply looking for something to be offended at.