ThatsWhyWeirChamps

You having a dig at me? If so why? Have I said anything that is untrue?

Yes. Lots.

Frankie, if you don't mind I'd rather not comment at this stage. TWWC is a nice guy who I got to know from giving him a lift home from meetings. Having said that, he only joined the Board in October and this project had been going since May so he may not be in possession of all the facts. I will probably be going to the meeting and will see what is said.

A stance I'd be happy for everyone to adopt.

The information I posted up there was communicated by two RST board members, for clarity.

I was not, and am not, suggesting the RST are supporting it - only that they will be along to listen to the presentation; which is all that's been asked of anyone.

I'm not sure the use of terms such as deceitful and even worse stuff we've seen elsewhere is fair unless you're fully aware of exactly what happened.

 

I'll concede that those who left perhaps could have approached this more constructively but it appears this issue is part of a larger malaise within the recent board activities of the RST. As someone who was involved in a similar split in 2008, experience tells me everything won't be as black or as white as either side may claim.

 

To that end, I think it's up to the rest of us to maintain an open mind on this.

I can assure people that I have not been deceitful. I have tried my best to avoid going over things, because there's really no way for it to go but become tit-for-tat.

This is a personal issue masquerading as a moral or ethical one. The guys involved did resign from the RST, but the reason they resigned had nothing to do with backstabbing or deceiving the RST. I can't really go into any more detail than that without seeming like I'm shit-stirring.

I only hope that people take their views on this from the RST stance as opposed to that of a former board member. The RST are not opposed to the meeting taking place and will be attending the meeting with the same open mind that every other fan who has been invited will be asked to do.

Can I just say that the Trust were never more sexy than when I was on the board...

 

"Those were the days, my friend..."

Is this like an ex-RST board member retirment community then that fate has had me stumble upon?

I've come over from FF specifically to get a bit of clarity on this. It was in short supply over there.

Implicit in what you've been saying seems to be that the RST 'brand' having too much baggage to act as a vehicle for fan share ownership. Or am I misreading it?

Otherwise I can't see why any scheme couldn't have been accommodated under the RST. And if so, why not just say it? If the RST has become so divisive that too many won't touch it then so be it but surely it would be better to just come out and say it?

I don't think that's the issue, I think that fan ownership will only be delivered by a single-purpose vehicle. The Trust continues to represent its members on the day-to-day issues, like the Club's PR man, as an example, and that's fine, but perhaps that approach won't unite enough fans behind it to be successful enough on the fan owership front? That's basically the premise of the presentation.

No bad words to be had about the Trust, as I say, I think fans should be represented on those issues too - but perhaps the two-pronged approach just isn't viable?

Due to other more personal issues Mark is taking a hard line against it. That's perfectly fine, all that's asked is that you look at what is proposed with an open mind and decide if that sounds achievable. If not, we continue as is.

Your last point is spot on, that's why I said you should be focusing on the CIC and not other stuff. Potentially the CIC is brilliant but how it's being set up isn't in accordance with community goals due to behaviour MD, rightly or wrongly, is alluding to on FF.

It is though. The views of the Rangers community are being sought. That doesn't mean it's competition for the Trust or the formation of a new fans group. It's a proposal to bang heads, get all fans together and working towards one common goal. If it doesn't get the support initially from all sections then it won't be progressed.

Mark is trying to make this look like some anti-Trust exercise when that isn't the case. I continue to be a member of the RST - I believe in it, and I think the people on board are capable of representing my views, but I think we have to explore fresh ways to bring more of the support to fan ownership.

Couldn't tell you about who's appointed as compliance officer, but you said BuyRangers wasn't compliant and you later had to retract. Your retraction is there.

"Due to other circumstances, we're now in a position where the RST can't even deliver the Buy Rangers scheme - it won't and can't meet compliance procedures."

"It isn't an allegation, mate, and it isn't supposed to be a sleight either.

The author of Buy Rangers is no longer on the board, and someone of his expertise is required to make sure it meets the compliance procedures on an ongoing basis.

I don't possess those skills and neither does anyone else left on the RST board. I haven't a clue about the intricacies of FCA mutual rules - it's complicated business."

"I don't know. Perhaps they'll seek a new compliance officer? "

That's what I said. If you take from that that Buy Rangers isn't compliant then I can only apologise, but that's not what I said.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but the purpose of it was to highlight that the Trust have lost lots of talent over this shitty situation. As I said, emotions can get the better of you when you;re having your integrity questioned.

Where does it say #spivsout? That's #sacktheboard

If you go back to my previous post, you'll see I amended it.

The point remains the same.

Erm, not only did I challenge the stats because they were cherry picked and asked for a complete picture of one year, I also asked for proof of where we said #spivsout. I'm still waiting. And on. Saturday you said BuyRangers was non compliant which you later retracted because it was false and misleading.

I didn't say Buy Rangers is non-compliant. The thread is still there for anyone who wants to go and see.

The Compliance Officer resigned. Therefore, as things stand and on an ongoing basis the scheme can't and won't meet compliance procedures. That's a fact.

Perhaps the Trust have since appointed a new Compliance Officer, and hopefully they have, but that was the truth when I said it. It wasn't supposed to be about criticising Buy Rangers either, but I suppose getting worked up when someone is smearing you on a public forum can perhaps be excused.

Since then I've been called a liar, had my moral fibre questioned, been called deceitful and many other wretched insults from a bitter man who seems to blame other people for his departure from the Trust.

https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/383907213938790400

https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/386398241035943936

https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/386974001509044224

https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/385894985712672768

https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/385109911757410304

https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/383901288460992513

Was that part of the perfectly acceptable policy which 3 experts commented on?

I find it incredible that SD were threatening to ban RST over the WDYGH chant, but have allowed Jeanette Findlay and the Celtic Trust free reign with their continuous pro-terrorist agenda over many, many yeras. Personally I'd have told SD to do one.

The Celtic Trust aren't SD members.

Three PR experts said the RST social media policy was spot on. Btw, this was flung at me on email and no one showed proof, where did the RST Twitter ever say #spivsout?

 

Goodwin wanted to be spokesperson for FoH and Pars Unted and they knocked him back too. His proposal which was supported by the guys doing the CIC was laughed at by PR experts. They had to be convinced it was a serious proposal before commenting from a professional perspective. Moreover, a neutral observer, who's very respected on here and across the support, warned one CIC committee guy not to push the media proposal, before the proposal was ever presented to the RST board. Go figure!

 

Iain, by all means promote the CIC but if you're going to be disingenuous then I will start commenting....commenting on behaviour of certain individuals too. I'm letting folk make their own mind up by observing but I'm not sitting back reading that pish. You were caught lying on Saturday with posts on FF, don't ruin your credibility as you're a very decent guy with loads to offer.

Disingenious?

Why was there no denial that the RST twitter frequently tweeted #SpivsOut at the time? Don't have them to hand anymore, but there were statistics which had the number of times it was mentioned and you didn't challenge them any of the times it was mentioned. We both know it happened, to claim otherwise IS disingenious. That wasn't supposed to be a dig at you either, but it's fact that there was debate on that issue between board members several times. If you'd never done that and the statistics which were used were false you could easily have said so.

I don't think I said I supported Paul Goodwin as spokesman either. But I supported the single-issue policy.

And lying on FF on Saturday? That's a big accusation. About what exactly?

EDIT: My apologies, it wasn't #SpivsOut - it was #SackTheBoard

You won't find any personal attacks on here if I can help it but we can criticise comments where necessary.

 

As for the chap Goodwin, I don't know him but in his SD work he simply must be a neutral professional so I'd hope and assume his influence would be related more to those virtues than any suggestion his Partick affiliations would suggest he would work against us.

 

Moreover, we have to remember he's only one cog on what appears to be a larger wheel. I doubt the people involved would allow him to offer bad advice but the point about having someone across from Hamburg is a good one.

I know Paul, and have worked with him in the fan ownership issue. He's a good guy and his organisation will help where they can, who he supports is irrelevant to me personally. No job is worth forcing yourself to watch Partick Thistle over and over, in any case!

SD are dedicated to delivering community ownership, it's their ultimate purpose, and will work with any group who has an idea or wish to implement it.

They are not suggesting a competing fans group.

Drew is right to have doubts about it - all of us should - but the idea is worth an airing and then we can all decide for ourselves. His point about groups not being consulted - that's what the meeting is for. Drew and all groups have had people invited.

Not sure why anyone would want to stay anonymous.

 

I myself have concerns about the viability of the new scheme and would have no problem putting my name to them. That's the whole point of debate.

Spot on.

And this in the Evening Times:

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/doubts-over-fans-bid-to-buy-rangers-151110n.23368031

Anonymous?

I'm sure it's absolutely nothing to do with the personal slurs and lies being perpetuated by Mark on Follow Follow. Nothing at all.

That's fine Iain and thanks for trying to answer questions.

 

I'm open minded about this subject, but slightly concerned about SD and whether or not they've now found their feet with a definitive fan ownership model.

The best person to judge that will be yourself! I believe there is a plan to hold further meetings if there is a positive reception to this one, hopefully encompassing a wider audience and greater participation.

Rangers fans are exploring the possibility of launching a bid to buy a stake in the club

 

 

 

 

... apparently ignoring that a) there is already a scheme running and b) the RST et al have promoted similar stuff for months, if not years.

 

It says absolutely nothing about the interesting question, i.e. whether these supposed 25% of shares would give any sort of stability to the club and any tangible influence on how it is being run? It is rather different to have nigh 80% of a club's shares like in Hearts' case, or just 25% ... if you find willing sellers.

A controlling stake doesn't have to be 50%+1. The reality is that the group the Easdales represent have a controlling influence with just over 25%, that's due to the small stake that the majority of our shareholders have. It's different now to when it was originally framed under SDM.

As I said a few pages back, as little as 5% held by an organised block can hold the board to account and start to exert influence. You can requisition an EGM, circulate a statement (both written, and in our case, probably on the website), you can propose a director, propose any sort of resolution really. 5% would probably have been enough for fans to bang heads together prior to the AGM too.

I'm still trying to fathom out what on earth is going on with Supporters Direct guiding and backing the Trust on setting up the BuyRangers scheme only just over a year ago in November 2012 then coming along 14 months later with a better idea, so I have a few questions:

 

Why didn't Supporters Direct advise the Trust to set up a CIC instead of the BuyRangers model in the first place?

 

What's to stop Supporters Direct coming along in 18 months time with a better ownership model than the CIC?

 

Would Supporters Direct coming along with a better model in a year or two also be looked upon as "Rangers fans should look at it as more strings to their bow"?

 

Is there a limit to how many strings you can put on a bow or is a case of just keep adding them when someone designs a better string?

You're asking questions I'm unable to answer. Supporters Direct are hosting a meeting, and presenting the model which has been successful at several other clubs across Scotland.

If you're asking whether I believe fans should keep working at it until we get it right, then yes - definitely.

Sorry again but I know nothing about Twitter so I wouldn't know how to get so far as clicking on it.

Click on that image.

 

That seems clear and singular enough to me.

 

The Trust should not comment on issues outwith that narrow remit. That it does so, and I am happy to take your word for it; does not make it correct.

"The Rangers Supporters Trust is a supporter's group with 3 aims: wider share ownership supporter representation & defending the reputation of the Gers family."

Which was the entire purpose of the proposal.

I'm not going to say it's wrong to comment on the issues it does, I just don't think it helps when trying to unite fans behind fan ownership.

How can you call the board spivs on Twitter and go in to meet them the following day to debate issues with them? (as an extreme example)

I am sorry, I don't Tweet, nor am I on FB.

You don't have to to click it and see my full-name!

By the same token, urging people to spend money from behind a pseudonym is not entirely cricket either!

Firstly, I'm not anonymous, and secondly, I haven't done that.

That is complete and utter nonsense and betrays the fact that those who proposed it have no idea of the concept of a Supporters Trust.

 

A Supporters Trust IS a single issue entity i.e. to promote democratic supporter ownership e.g. "The purpose of a supporters’ trust is to establish a strong, positive working relationship with the owners of its football club, with a view to supporter input." (Crystal Palace).

 

No member of the Trust Board should ever be drawn on whether the Easdales are good or bad and whether Jack Irvine is good or bad ; if they can't subscribe to that notion they shouldn't be members of the Board and certainly shouldn't need to "employ" anyone else for that purpose. If the Trust Board can't espouse there own raison d'etre then that shows them in a very poor light indeed.

 

Why on earth would it be incredible for a Rangers fan to promote fan ownership of Rangers; that is utterly bizarre.

 

The fact that there had to be a vote on this issue at all is evidence, if any more was needed, that the Trust has lost all credibility and relevance.

 

To that extent, I think this is the second time in my life that I have agreed with Mr Mark Dingwall; and you can feel free to tell him I said so.

Not planning on getting into a slanging match, but if the Trust is already a single-issue entity, why does it comment on issues which aren't about fan ownership?

Why did a vote on a proposal which would have implemented a policy on that fail?

I think you should double-check the 3 stated aims of the RST if you believe it is a single-issue entity. It clearly isn't.

By any chance are you Paul Goodwin?

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

That's impossible.

 

As an employee of SD he couldn't possibly become the spokesperson for one Trust.

 

He might be a Thistle fan but he was a director of Stirling Albion following the fans buyout of that club.

It was part of a proposal to update the Trust's PR/Comms policy. It was suggested that the Trust become a single-issue entity and that the Trust don't have a spokesman - they simply allow Paul Goodwin/SD to promote the issues. The benefits, it was suggested, was that he couldn't be drawn on things like whether the Easdales are good or bad and whether Jack Irvine is good or bad - his only message would be fan ownership. He would also be free to sit in the BBC studio and promote fan ownership of Rangers and go on Clyde, whereas a Rangers fan would lose credibility if he did it.

It was outvoted, democratically, but it seems to have got Mark's goat. Not sure why.