3909 04

My opinion? Put simply, the RST needs to be more than a mouthpiece for a single Rangers website. The proprietor of said website and its associated fanzine has an unfortunate knack of falling out permanently with too many fellow Rangers fans. I don't think he's solely to blame for these fallouts but neither is he completely without blame. The RST should not be a vehicle to help any individual make a living and, unfortunately, that's how it's seen by too many people; rightly or wrongly.

Your "findings" are inaccurate, as usual these days. I like and am friendly with Dingwall and I was one of the earliest members of the Trust, an organisation whose aims I support. However, I speak my mind and I know the RST will never grow materially in its present format. Those who disagree are welcome to bookmark my post and talk to me in a year's time when my predictions can be judged.

OK, so £12k per annum then. That's quite a material sum, which should be visible on the annual accounts. Plus, I wouldn't be too dismissive of MUST's free e-membership scheme. Surely the RST would love a database of 188,000 potential members? The problem with the RST, even if you won't acknowledge it, is their insistence on putting a £ sign on every activity they undertake. That, plus the memory of bitter boardroom battles, their less than squeaky clean financial dealings and the continued presence of one particularly divisive figure right at the heart of the Trust, makes Bears reluctant to invest anything in an organisation supposedly set up for the benefit of fams. To outsiders, it looks far more like a smug, condescending, know-it-all self-interest group.

You're claiming to have more than 1.6k active RST members right now? So you're currently taking in more than £16k per annum in membership? 16k FB likes followers is an interesting number. Becomes a little less impressive when held up against Man Utd Supporters Trust's 23k FB likes and membership approaching 188,000. Ignore the obvious reasons all you please but you know the takeup of RST membership continues to disappoint.

To paraphrase an earlier post on this thread: "So, you know that 'most of the support' are not Masons, do you? What utter nonsense, perhaps you should broaden your outlook ..."

I'd say the fact that the RST membership, of which I was proudly one, never rose above 1,600 kind of proves the point. Unless you consider that 1,600 members can realistically constitute a majority of the Rangers support? Yes, 90%+ of the share ownership was in one man's hands. We all see the folly of one man owning such a giant chunk of the club. So why is the RST membership still showing no sign of growing? Whatever the reason for Bears' refusal to enlist, it's not because of words I post on here. Somthing/someone is discouraging Rangers fans from joining a body designed to increase fan ownership. What do you think it might be?

That thought had occurrred to me also! If the money had been invested in Rangers, it would have been flushed down the crapper. The RST's failure to do anything material with the funds actually saved investors' money. Go figure, as they say.

Stirring stuff. Does it ever occur to you that the RST is seen as a good idea which has thus far failed comprehensively in its aims, chiefly because of the singular lack of trust on the part of most of the support in the Trust's long-standing key figures? I've no doubt Bluedell will rush on to refute my contention but his denial makes the facts no less true.

Now I'm confused. When I said earlier the RST administered the account, I was told "that was rubbished on here by several posters only last week". Now you're saying the RST did in fact administer it? No big deal but plenty of confusion, I'd say.

Pleasure. We'll do it again but maybe you could tone down the fury a notch or two? We're all friends here.

Was it? So if the RST didn't administer the account, who did? Was it the brokers who set up the Gersave scheme Direct Sharedeal, whose ex-FD was ex-RST chairman Malcolm McNiven?

I'm still no clearer but it sounds like this has been a healthy catharsis for you.

That's impressive. Four anger-filled paragraphs and I genuinely have not the slightest clue what you're trying to say. Let me guess: you like David Leggat, you don't like Alan Harris/BH, you like the RST, you don't like people criticising them, you're sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for the £93k sitting in an RST-administered account for years, you don't believe in Rangers fans talking down other Rangers fans except when you or David Leggat do it. Am I close?

You're very welcome but I'm no conspiracy theorist. Leggat was never an RST board member. How would he know what happened at a board meeting some years ago and why would he mention it now other than to discredit a vociferous critic of the RST and in particular its most prominent member? Please, as you hold very strong opinions about my post, enlighten us all by deconstructing every word I've written. As it's all "rubbish", that should be an easy task for you.

I've asked him about that via PM on here and despite a lengthy reply, I'm still not at all clear what motivated him to act as he did when he did. Leaving that aside for a moment though, I find it interesting that Leggat is helping the RST to discredit a critic.

Thanks for the reply. It seems someone has asked Leggat to discredit you publicly. I wonder who that could have been?

"Low is also very friendly with Alan Harris, a former Rangers Trust Secretary who left in the wake of him trying to introduce David Low to a Trust meeting. Harris was then unsuccessful in his attempt to become elected to a powerful position with the Supporters Direct organisation." Is this what happened? Would Mr Hemdani care to comment?

This wasn't a clearance, it happened straight from the start of the match. The ball was tapped from Jig to Shiels, back to Hutton, back to Perry then "boom". No Clyde player was within ten yards of Perry when he launched the ball, he could have passed it anywhere on the park. There was no need whatever for a hopeful punt at that stage of the match. This was unquestionably a management instruction.

Against Clyde a few weeks ago, the ball was passed back to Ross Perry who looked up and launched a long ball in the general direction of Jig from our 18 yard line. This was after eight seconds. It may not be our "main tactic" but we use it far, far too often against inferior opponents.

We'd need a director of football like Gordon Smith to devise the football strategy. Charles Green, Brian Stockbridge, Malcolm Murray and Imran Ahmad may be many things but they're not football visionaries.

I'll decide which site I use, thank you. If you don't like being compared to a Tranny Army member, I suggest you stop acting like one. I'm paraphrasing and a lot more accurately than you manged with your "sniff sniff " or "who are you calling a Tim?" garbage. Why do you ask? I take it from the tone of your posts that you're in your teens. Am I right?

How could you possibly know whether there are non-Rangers fans on here? (Note I said non-Rangers fans, not Tims; only you mentioned Tims.) Do you have a vouching system in place? You can't have; no-one on here knows me for a start. This "We're only a wee Div 3 team and poor Ally is still learning" is more akin to the Tartan Army than Rangers. I'll just go and fuck myself now, as instructed.

Brilliant! Sadly, the romance of the Ramsdens Cup was not sufficient for plucky Div 3 Rangers, who proved no match for the mighty, table-topping Doonhamers.

Next they'll be telling us we can't expect to compete with teams at the top of Div 2 so no wonder QOS beat us. Are we sure these eager apologists for failure are Rangers fans?

Is that why we lost to Stirling Albion? They're simply better than us, is that right?