3909 04

Out of interest, what would it take for material growth?

 

I have read many allegations of financial improprieties on this board and others regarding the trust. To my knowledge nobody has ever contacted the police or the FSA regarding these accusations. Some of which are very serious. These unfounded allegations are far more divisive than any one individual. The RST board has a broad range of talented professionals who are anything but "yes men". There are those who wish to undermine the RST for their own reasons and no matter what the RST does, these individuals will find reason to criticise.

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.

it says a lot about the critics I find. the nature and accuracy of their claims says the rest.

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.

Firstly, there are about 400 life members included in my figure so no to your monetary figure. As for FB and Twitter, I was comparing to other Rangers groups. MUST count their free e-members as members so you can't really compare that either.

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.

We're sitting at more than 1600 now. I think that the £10 membership is a factor but, more importantly, the vast majority of fans are mostly interested in what is happening on the pitch. However we have 22K following us on Twitter and over £16K likes on Facebook which I believe is more than any other fans groups or websites.

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.

most rangers fans are not masons but to equate that to a dislike or misstrust of masonry would be incorrect.

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 ..."

So, you know that 'most of the support' feels like this do you? What utter nonsense, perhaps you should broaden your outlook beyond a couple of websites. The main reason that we were unable to take forward fan ownership was due to one person owning 90%+ of shares.

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?

It's ironic that had GerSave functioned the way it was intended then there would have been nothing to return to members.

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.

that's what I really love about these threads. if you don't know sometho.g for sure yourself your forced to discount everything that's said until bluedell comes along with the truth.

 

the sheer volume of anti rst propeganda that goes about is incredible.

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.

The RST administered the account. What is the big deal? The Gersave members paid into the account and the cash was held there on their behalf.

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.

Not at all. Day off and I'm bored so thanks for passing some time with me.

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

this was rubbished only last week by several posters.

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?

Of course you do.

 

 

No. Poor blogger.

 

 

Don't know him so can't comment.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

Shit happens. Democracy, freedom of speech etc. If it's fair and not based on lies then I can't complain.

 

 

 

Of course and members who are in it know.

 

 

 

I don't talk down of fellow bears except in reply to bull shit. I especially do not smear, belittle, intimidate, bully to promote an agenda.

 

 

 

Nope.

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

Very easy: Most Rangers fans have never been board members but many claim to know that we've stolen money from Gersave or hold it back from members. So going by your logic, how do all of these fans know that we're up to no good without ever knowing the rules of such a scheme, how its administered, the decision making process and who exactly has money in it.

 

You see, you say something without any proof, common theme on some sites, but have no evidence other than conspiracy, fantasy or own particular agenda to back it up.

 

Like this example here and many others, folk put two and two together, embarrass their mathematical skills, all because they'd much rather talk down fellow Rangers fans.

 

Oh, and I couldn't give a flying fuck about BH. And going by the fact he's never discussed via email or at board meetings, neither do the board who were there at the time of BH.

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?

Erm, remove the tinfoil from your head and stop talking rubbish.

 

That's all

Thanks.

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.

Are you aware what BH did during the Blue Nights period? There's no bigger enemy to Rangers than a "man". Like BH.

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.

See my answer to PLG. David Low is an acquaintance of mine insofar as we are both IFA's.

 

I was elected to the Board of Supporters Direct (UK) in June 2010 and Chair of the Scottish Council of Supporters Direct at its inaugral meeting in March 2011 and resigned in April this year. In that capacity I attended meetings of the JAG and was a member of the JRG.

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?

BTW, if people look at any (sic!) clearance as long-ball-game stuff, the argument is lost. We hardly prefer that route and if you look at other teams (not least in Britain), this way of clearing one's lines is still the preferred option (unless you got real quality defenders and real quality midfielders). In this division, the old-style long ball to the quality striker amidst part-time defenders is a reasonable way to do it. And while we are at it, right now, our midfield is not exactly littered with quality-pass spraying people, so the odd long ball towards McCulloch is the shortest route to goal. As it looks, that will have to change, unless we use Kyle up there.

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.

I haven't seen a game yet where that is the main tactics by Rangers.

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 have heard if he'd lost the dressing room, players are terrible gossips, it would have come out.

 

I agree we're possibly missing an opportunity, for me the direction needs to come from the directors though, they should set the vision and charge Ally with delivering it.

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'm willing to accept that the people on Gersnet are bluenoses, even the ones I strongly disagree with on a number of subjects. If you want to start the 'sniff sniff' stuff on anyone you disagree with then you might be on the wrong site.

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.

You just made that quote up though, no one on this thread has said that.

I'm paraphrasing and a lot more accurately than you manged with your "sniff sniff " or "who are you calling a Tim?" garbage.

 

Great, which position?

Why do you ask?

I take it from the tone of your posts that you're in your teens. Am I right?

Hang about here. We can discuss this civilly or we can start trading insults if you want but go fuck yourself with the "Are we sure these eager apologists for failure are Rangers fans?" pish.

 

No one has 'low' standards, no one is accepting defeat or not hurting. Showing loyalty to someone does not make you a Tim particularly when that someone is the single greatest Rangers' player of our time.

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.

rangers losing to malmo, maribor, falkirk, inverness and queen of the south all in just over a year is now romantic. we have heard it all now. i cringe!

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.

not as good as the opposition is the excuse now. my god. these excuses are getting more desperate.

 

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?

If you simply aren't as good as the opposition you can also be out-manoeuvred. That's surely the issue here.

Is that why we lost to Stirling Albion?

They're simply better than us, is that right?