3909 04

The Miller banners were perhaps badly worded (and ill-advised) when one considered the American players in our team at that time but I think it's stretching it to say they were racist. Smacks of trying too hard to find fault with something.

 

I'm coming to today's posts late in the day but all in all I think this thread has been quite interesting and I'm glad people have been largely polite in the discussion. I thank the RST guys (and Brahim) for taking the time to defend their corner and I think it goes to show that even controversial subjects can be discussed in a (reasonably) balanced fashion.

 

As always, if we can avoid concentrating on individuals and associated unsubstantiated allegations I'd be much obliged.

Fine but that cuts both ways, in that criticism of anything RST-related is too readily dismissed by presenting it as anti-Dingwall sentiment. Either we keep personalities out of both sides of these debates or else remarks pertaining to individuals will inevitably creep in.

What I find impossible to swallow is the faux-innocence with which RST criticism is met on this thread. "What? Us give info to Lego in order to discredit an ex-Trust figure who made serious accusations of financial impropriety? Why would we do that?" Yes, very convincing.

Last point: so I'm "clutching at straws" pointing out the idiocy of a banner bearing derogatory references to an unwanted buyer's nationality? Oh yeah? And fans' rejection of Miller's bid was simply articulation of their opposition to a newco, was it? Answer me this, in that case. Once Brian Kennedy announced his bid, an RST board member publicly remarked, "Now they want a Hibby running the club? You couldn't make it up." What did he mean by that? What were the hidden grounds for said RST figure's opposition to Kennedy's bid? Because obviously a Trust board member would never oppose a bid based solely on the bidder's favourite football team. Had Kennedy not been to see the RST to discuss his plans, was that it?

If you're going to make stuff up as you go along, at least make it plausible.

Did you see the banners for Bill Ing or for the German bidder? Jesus wept. Bone cutting stuff!

The anti-American sentiment in the banners was ill-advised, superfluous and hurtful. It caused Rangers FC great embarrassment.

If you seek to deny that, you're being mendacious.

And with that, I bid you adieu.

In all honesty I find neither your username nor the banners to be offensive but then I'm not out looking for something to be offended at.

Carlos Bocanegra found the banners offensive. Is he a conspiracy theorist or a Mark Dingwall hater?

but he must be skimming money off the top hes been there for years.

I'm sure any money he made was just "resting in his account".

you see to summarise this is it.

 

the rst put out racist banners. - truth is they didn't and the banners weren't racist anyway.

 

then we have the accusation that mark dingwall is somehow making out of the rst with no detail or evidence. ou cant even argue against that its so utterly vague.

 

then its the notion that the rst membership despite a 30% rise is being held back by marks involvement. again no evidence and its hard to see how the reasoning is even arrived at.

 

and you can point these things out till your blue in the face but the only thing thats certain is in a few months we will be here again with the same unsupportable accusations being made.

 

at least this thread has the input from bluedell, shorerbear, brahim and plgsarmy on the rules for refunds which seems to boil down to the rules being stretched but for all the right reasons. that at least comes down to each individuals view on how rigidly rules should be followed. personally i have no problem breaking the rules if its the right thing to do. but i know some see that as a path to anarchy.

The banners were organised on a web-site owned by an RST board member.

The banners were/are racist despite your continued weak denials.

Mr Dingwall may or may not be making money from RST initiatvies but the perception among huge swathes of the support is that he is doing so. Hence my questioning the wisdom of his continued involvement.

A 30% YOY rise in membership is hugely impressive. I look forward to next year's accounts showing a similar rise.

We may well discuss these matters in weeks/months to come. I certainly won't stop doing so just because you happen to disagree with me.

So you are saying I'm lying, even although I have far greater knowledge about this than you. Okay then but you didn't mention these fund-raising schemes that the ex-Board members aren't involved in.

I don't think you're giving your true opinions, certainly not regarding the banner. If the site known as V*******Bears had sponsored such a banner, for example, I believe your FF/RST cohorts would have been the first to shriek in horror and outrage at such a "threatening" message.

But I bear you no ill-will and I really don't want to argue with you so let's leave it please?

First I've seen those. Ill Phil would tar them as racist and his daughter would cry!

 

Wonder if 39090 will praise the RST for embracing and promoting the scarf campaign which was the single biggest source of income for the RFFF and a subsequent symbol of our time on admin? Or is the tone strictly negative?

Yes, the RST are good at devising and participitating in schemes to collect funds provided by Rangers supporters.

And the RST's most prominent member and most longstanding board member always seems to be involved.

Interesting.

Some might use that very logic to deem your username sectarian.

Yes they might, to which I could say, "What do you mean? It's just a number."

Would you buy that? No?

Well neither do I buy the weak denials of the meaning behind the "Yanks No Thanks" banner.

Jeez, how many times do I have to say that we had nothing to do with the banners and I don't think the person who paid for them posts on any website. As for 'not one is seen to be involved in any RST-backed fund-raising schemes' what fund-raising schemes are you talking about?

As for your last question, I have no idea, I suspect it has no effect but I don't know.

I'm afraid I don't accept the veracity of anything you've said, especially your wholly unconvincing last line.

As such, there is no point debating with you any further.

 

just so people can decide for themselves if this is racism

Where's the "play on words" in the 2nd banner?

What does the inclusion of the word "Yanks" add to the message?

Tell me, please, because to me that's an unequivocal and wholly unnecessary anti-American sentiment.

BTW Carlos Bocanegra said at the time of the banner, "Being Amercian and seeing "go home Yanks" banner was unfortunate but I know it’s not the feeling of the entire country. It’s a minority of people and that stuff happens."

So n American Rangers player felt that way about the banners. I'd call that hugely embarrassing, what about you?

yanks but no yanks is clearly a play on words. the notion its racist just daft. i think we can all see that if were being HONEST.

If you don't want a banner or slogan to appear racist, it should not mention the ethnic origin or nationality of the person at whom it is aimed. The banner in question did so, thus it was/is racist.

I can repeat this all night if you like.

Gosh, you really have been mis-informed. The reason that we were supporting TBK was because they came to us to explain their plans. Any opposition to Bill Miller was nothing to do with his nationality, it was his newco plan. The banners at Ibrox were nothing to do with the RST, why don't you speak to the man who paid for them and tell him he is an embarrassment, As for your point about the others having moved on from the RST, I believe they are all still members but being on the Board takes up quite a lot of spare time.

Nice try. So after bitterly opposing the Rangers board of directors for years, the RST decided to back unquestioningly a bid headed up by an ex-director with 4 years service on the RFC board "because he came to see you"? Bless!

If you/RST/FF didn't oppose Miller on the basis of his natiinality, the banner shouldn't have mentioned it. Whoever paid for it (and I understand it was a very well-known FF user and close friend of MD) did embarrass himself in financing such an unwise banner, as I suspect you know very well.

The other ex-board members are still RST members, I'm sure, but not one is seen to be involved in any RST-backed fund-raising schemes, unlike MD (and the other two long-standing board members, come to that).

Answer me one question, honestly if you can. Do you think the continued presence on the RST board of Mark Dingwall has a positive or a negative effect on any recruitment drive? In other words, would more fans join if MD stayed or went?

the banners very clearly weren't racist and anyone saying that they were shows what they are all about.

 

unless i missed one feel free to show my the pics of a racist banner?

As I've already pointd out very clearly, a banner opposing a prospective owner's on the basis of his ethnic origin, such as the FF/RST-backed "Yanks No Thanks" banner at Ibrox, was and remains racist.

Your denials of this self-evident fact demean you. Feel free to keep digging, you're succeeding only in weakening your own argument.

you see thats the quality of the anti rst argument you get. yanks but no yanks is now racist.

 

as i say lies and half truths.

 

and that before we get on to bill millers now know qualities as a prospective owner. ran a mile at the first look at the books. was buying us on the condition that the sfa/spl allowed the newco into the spl. bill miller was a red herring. anyone who was against him was quite right to be. though any effort to chase him off was a waste of time he couldn't run fast enough.

 

oh and people need to seperate the rst and its members board or otherwise. if i believe something it doesnt mean gersnet does. if mark thinks something its not the view of the rst.

 

if the rst said anything against bill miller i missed it.

Opposing prospective owners on the basis of their ethnic origin is racist. In the same way as opposing homosexual purchasers with a "Gay? No way" banner would be homophobic. And we know how strongly you feel about that particular crime.

As I said, an RST board memebr's site was used as a gathering point for a spam email campaign intended to deter a purchaser. If he wasn't acting on behalf of the RST, he should have been warned about his conduct at the next meeting but the notion of the RST board telling Dingwall what to do is as fanciful as Lennon telling Celtic fans to stop singing IRA songs; it will never happen.

Look again at the list of ex-RST board members I listed. They've all moved on from the RST; why hasn't Dingwall? Why is he still hanging around like Banquo's ghost all these years later? What's in it for him?

no they were not.

 

also bill miller wanted us on the basis we stayed in the spl as a newco. we know how that went.

 

he also had little cash his offer was to be paid up over 4 years.

 

his getting preferred bidder was nothing more than a delaying tactic by d@p no one could possibly believe his offer was viable.

Err, yes the RST very much were cheerleaders for TBK. I've never seen Mr Dingwall act as coquettishly as he did when he was breathlessly praising every fart and belch made by Paul Murray during TBK's several abortive takeover bids. It was beyond embarrassing.

Plus MD allowed his site to be used as a gathering point for racist banners and spam email campaigns designed to discourage a prospective owner when we were facing oblivion.

Utterly shameful behaviour from a man who should have known far better.

I avoid any RST threads over there. I have better things to do with my life than reading the same people making the same whining noises about MD.

Quite right. Stay here and read banned and hurting ex-posters bitching about RM instead.

Well I have to say this is all very heartening. FF now encourages open and frank debate on the RST, there's no tag-team stamping out anti-RST threads and membership is up 30% year on year.

Happy days indeed for the RST. You must all be very proud.

I was talking about the RST Board, not the forum.

Ok, I accept that point.

membership up about 30% then not bad.

How does an annual subs revenue amount of £13.6k for this year constitute a "30% increase in membership"?

Are you saying the figure was previously 1047 active members?

all that surety about ff from someone who admitts they can't access it.

 

well I can and I see plenty of rst criticism.

Do you now? Take screens-shots of one such thread to prove your point in that case but be quick or the ban hammer will strike.

The reason for my surety is because I'm right. If you say otherwise, point out the mistakes in my post.

Only three of the people you mention are still on the Board as and I am one of them perhaps I shouldn't comment, although I will. I am on FF but I probably post more on this site. Many of the people you mention haven't been on the Board for years. I've never denied that there was a link to FF, it's natural that would be the case as that's where the RST started. However, anything we put out goes on our own site first and is e-mailed out to members.

I was banned in March and they were all regular users then, apart from possibly one or two.

If your serious contention is that any one of Edgar, Leven, Deedle, Dylan, Dingwall or Dinnie "has not been an FF user for years", I would say you're being a whole lot less than truthful. I may not use the site any more but I know who still posts.

And there you have it. By 'founder members' do you mean people who joined in the first year? What significance is that? How many of the current Board are on FF and how are we a mouthpiece?

Are you seriously asking me what "founder member" means? It means they were the first members of the fledgling organisation, which would suggest they joined in the 1st year, yes. Well deduced. If you think founder membership means nothing, presumably you would have no issue with longstanding RST board members Mark Dingwall, Joanne Percival and Christine Somerville leaving the organisation tomorrow. Yes?

How many of the current board are on FF? No idea, I'm life-banned.When I was last on there, Gordon Dinnie, Percival, Somerville & Dingwall were RST board members. Are they still? Also, Ayrshire Billy Boy, Bearwood Bear, Earl of Leven, David Edgar, Deedle, DylanGer, Bearsden Bear, London Bear, etc are all one-time and some may still be current RST board members. All are active FF users to this day. Who is "we" in your question? FF is a mouthpiece for RST policy in that it's used to spread positive RST stories, primarily by the aforementioned tag-team, many of whom are named above. Even the RST board wouldn't deny this.

Given all the above, are you still denying any link between FF & the RST? Seriously?

Good luck with that.

Yes. Although the accounts are for the year to 5th April 2012.

Great. What is the exact revenue figure for annual membership subs for year ended Apr 2012 please?

Firstly, as you will probably know, our accounts are independently audited each year by a very reputable company. These accounts are available on our website. I disagree regarding the £ sign. Every year (not last year due to turmoil at the club) we hold a family day where families come along and are entertained for nothing. We hire bouncy castles for the kids, have face painting, a disco and each child gets a bag full of freebies including a tee-shirt and CD. This costs us quite a bit of money but we feel it's worth it to help introduce kids into the Rangers family.

 

Of course we'd love a database of 188,000, who wouldn't. The other things you refer to happened years ago and were greatly exaggerated.

From what you've said, annual membership fees of £12k are due from the number of active members you're claiming. Does the latest set of published accounts contain a comparable figure to reflect this? If not, why not?

the rst has its own website and can hardly act on behalf of the two websites who's reason for living is to hate the rst.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is staggering. FF is full of RST board members, past & present, who act as a tag team every single time a thread starts criticising the RST. Yes, the RST has its website but it also has FF as its very effective mouth-piece.

Plus, Vanguardbears (which I take it is one of the sites whose "reason for living is to hate the RST" as you claim) is full of ex-RST founder members, some of whom were asked repeatedly to join the RST board. Unfortunately, they subsequently fell foul of you-know-who, were banned from the site which you state has nothing whatever to do with the RST, no sirree and started their own site.

If the intention is to grow the RST, they and their supporters will have to do a whole lot better than dismiss any criticism with, "You don't like the RST, do you?" Expanding the size of a fans' group is grown-up stuff.