Frankie
-
Posts
270,236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
179
Everything posted by Frankie
-
Thanks for that post UCB - it's good to know that our hope that people like yourself were working hard in the background wasn't misplaced... While I'm sceptical that we can achieve ultimate ownership, I do think there is an opportunity to initially raise substantial funds via an open, democratic and accountable membership scheme. Such a scheme has its own pitfalls of course but I feel it is a logical and possible first step to something more exciting in the longer term. Now, as Bluedell and I mentioned earlier, such schemes have been investigated and not far from competition before and I'm hoping your post is an indication that these have been revisited and able to be amended enough to get past the concept stage into something tangible. The names who are interested in backing/taking part in such a scheme are exciting and the type of figureheads required to give immediate credibility to the project. I'm not as confident as you that existing fan organisations (and associated problems) will be irrelevant but, like you, I do hope most fans would be able to see past such stuff in order to take the steps required to have a proper say in the club's future.
-
It's OK, you had plenty more votes...
-
Your contribution speaks for itself mate. I guess on such a small, often quiet forum, it isn't as difficult to get involved/noticed as one of the higher traffic places but, as always, I think that's a big positive as it means people can express themselves properly and not get lost amongst the chaff.
-
Yeah agree with that. Despite its 'official' status, the Assembly could be the organisation to unite the supporters and find a true democratic and accountable body. It has good resources, finance and the involvement of most 'formal' organisations. Yet, like its member organisations, seems to lack focus and is too thinly spread to make a real difference. That point has been made to them, and senior members agree, but little has been done to address this failing. I'd like to see them - along with the club's support - open a proper debate into what is expected of such a group whilst seeking advice on how to constitute it properly in order to make every Rangers fan represented and able to contribute. As is the case with the Trust though, that would mean people putting their own involvement/influence at risk so prevarication instead of participation could sum up their recent performance.
-
I think the banner(s) were a good example of a poorly thought out campaign. Not everyone is aware of the Trust website or the message they were trying to convey. As such, that would immediately isolate them from a large part of the fanbase for aiming strong criticism without up-to-date and well-researched suggestions on how the club could improve. Although I agreed with the more recent protests against the bank, again the choice of message and the way it was carried out was arguably flawed resulting in more confusion as opposed to alternatives.
-
Excellent participation in this and the Football Awards (which were posted a few weeks back) so thanks to everyone who took part. Anyway, some interesting results and it is always fun to gauge reactions at the end of the season! So without further ado: Gersnet User Award Results Most Knowledgeable User Winner: Bluedell Runner Up: Frankie User Most Likely to Change Your Mind in a Debate Joint Winners: Zappa/Frankie Runners Up: rbr, Bluedell, bmck, Craig User Least Likely to Change Your Mind in a Debate Winner: Wabashcannonball Runner Up: Calscot Most Helpful User Winner: Frankie Runners Up: Zappa, Bluedell Funniest User Winner: Ian1964 Runners Up: Zappa, Pete Most Frustrating User Winner: Wabashcannonball Runners Up: bmck, Calscot Best New Poster Joint Winners: Dr Preston Burke, Metlika, Flying Hippo, Danny, Runners Up: OnlyAnAmoruso, Wabashcannonball, Northampton_Loyalist, Andy Steel Admin Note: We think the above award just shows the strength of new poster we've had over the last year. That fact the award was so close with so many different nominations says a lot for new members' efforts to get involved and improve debate! Many thanks! User Most Likely to Start a Fight in an Empty Thread Winner: Wabashcannonball Runner Up: Danny Most Missed User Winner: JonC Runner Up: Norris Cole Best Article Contributor to the main site Winner: Frankie Runner Up: Super_Ally Best Mod/Admin Winner: Frankie Runner Up: Craig Overall Best User for 2009/2010 Winner: Super_Ally Runner Up: Frankie Super_Ally will be presented with our beautiful Gersnet crystal later in the summer. I spoke to him by phone last night and he was absolutely delighted with our prize and thanks all Gersnet users for their continued support of the forum. Gersnet Hall of Fame Winner: Super_Ally Runners Up: Bluedell, Craig Gersnet Hall of Shame Winner: Aiden McGeady Runners Up: Darrell King Admin Comments We'd like to take this opportunity to thank every Gersnet member for their contribution over the last year. These awards are just a bit of fun of course and we should hold every member in the same regard as different styles of posts and different opinions is what makes the place interesting. We're especially lucky here to have so many talented, intelligent, balanced and mature posters on here so the quality of debate is certainly well worthy of a daily visit; even if the quantity may not always satisfy newcomers enough to stick around. Those that do are rewarded with a cracking wee forum which is proud of its place in the online Rangers community. Conversely, we appreciate the forum/site isn't perfect so invite any feedback or suggestions for improvement. We're a bit disappointed that our off-topic Lounge seems under-used, so are especially interested in any ideas for the less serious side of Gersnet. Anyway, before I send you all to sleep, well done to those that did manage to win an award and here's hoping for another successful year for our team (and forum) in season 2010/11! We are the people! :robbo:
-
His good form last season means he'll feature again this term (especially if Bougherra leaves) and while his perceived lack of commitment may reduce the number of games he plays, his reputation is now high enough to ensure a decent move on a Bosman.
-
The vast majority of the area of concerns you listed were/are the responsibility of the then chairman/owner so, rightly or wrongly, the campaign was always going to be considered as an anti-SDM protest. Plenty of critics of the campaign were also unsure how you could say you backed the team/manager 100% when a few of the items listed directly criticised them. Now, I doubt many Rangers fans would have disagreed with the overall 'WDB' sentiment in January 2009. Unfortunately, the way the Trust carried out the campaign was flawed, divisive and has arguably had little impact on either the club or the Trust itself. Of course SDM carries the can for the various mistakes and club problems of the last decade. More and more people are becoming aware of that naturally as our continuing financial issues become more and more prevalent. The best way for the Trust to expedite that situation, while keeping their own reputation intact positively, was to work with the other fan groups on a more constructive way of raising awareness. Yet, during that time, the Trust not only just ignored such methods (e.g. the STS project) despite being invited to take part but poked fun at them. I've still not had a satisfactory answer to why that happened from those still in charge of your organisation. In 2007, I remember the Trust having a similar (but with a bit less depth) project which, although received well by the club, also unfortunately had minimal impact. Three years later, it still hasn't been updated, improved or refined to show Rangers supporters clearly where the club is failing. In my mind, working to do that via the professional consultation of its members, the wider fan-base and even non-Rangers supporters would have been the best way to offer constructive (though no less strong) criticism of the club. It arguably still is and it would certainly clearly show how the board/SDM have ignored good advice. Moreover, offering this at the same time as an opportunity to buy into a membership scheme by way of raising funds for the club and thus increased supporter influence would represent a strong strategy than a 'campaign' of sound-bites followed up by, well, next to nothing. This criticism isn't just aimed at the Trust; after all the Assembly is equally culpable of impotence and a lack of focus but if we're to find proper representation several years down the line of both organisations being founded, we really need a change of direction and substantial improvement from those in charge. Unity and leadership has never been more necessary but despite almost a year of uncertainty at our club, there is nothing for our fans to buy into (literally!).... This has been oft promised but as yet has not been forthcoming. I'm being genuine when I say I hope it will happen but I'm not confident until we see those who have failed step aside to give others a chance to deliver. That may be harsh and I fully appreciate it doesn't apply to every supporters rep but there's no room for sentiment during a time of opportunity.
-
An excellent post N_L... The media angle is a difficult one for the Trust (and the other groups). Obviously commenting in the media on any subject is a good way of raising their profile and some will say there's no such thing as bad publicity. In addition to that, it was always true (and probably still is) that there are spikes in the Trust membership when the RST are quoted in the media on controversial subjects. That's because many, many fans are interested in the media debate and, from my experience, is one of the most debated subjects on and offline. As such, if the Trust decided to defer media relations to the Assembly then they would lose one guaranteed method of publicity. With David Edgar leaving that may be a good idea anyway but I'd imagine a lot of people will be disappointed given the Assembly (although well aware of the media phenomenon) are less active in this area. On the other hand, being less controversial may help them attract more of the type of fan who is more interested in representation per se (i.e. shareholding, director status and ownership) who may be put off by the Trust's often 'tabloid' reputation. It is a risk but, as it stands, the Trust has arguably failed in it's primary aims so a change of tact is probably necessary. Unfortunately for those in charge that may mean more resignations as their position is surely untenable given the flawed WDB campaign and lack of leadership for the support during such crucial times. That lack of continuity is disappointing but as much as we need a clear-out of the old guard at Ibrox, perhaps the same broom is required in our fan groups.
-
Sorry for your loss BD and condolences to all that knew Mr Walker.
-
Yeah that sums up the situation for me too... We should really get a very good fee for Bougherra now so hopefully we can repeat the JAB/Cuellar/Bougherra act of recent years.
-
I think it is also important to apply the same principles to the Assembly. While they may not have the same baggage as the Trust, and while they may have a website that is immediately accessible in terms of its own forum, there isn't enough activity on there from its representatives to make it a worthwhile exercise in open debate. This shows there is a balance to be found and I think this can be achieved to allow open, accessible and regular debate between board members, potential members and existing members. I'm really not quite sure what the difficulty is in providing this. PS: Obviously going offline is more difficult to provide something for fans/members to contribute. This can be done though and both organisations are shirking their responsibilities in some respects with regard to that.
-
A few relevant points in that post which are worthy of comment. 1. I agree the Trust needs to examine its aims and constitution to see if it can either reduce or redefine its commitments to its members. While the support do need a vocal representative group, it is difficult to see how the Trust can retain an interest in every single issue which also increases its credibility in terms of its core aims. For example, many fans are hugely interested in the media debate. Yet, it could be argued that is nothing to do with the Trust aims per se - even although that aspect has arguably attracted most members/interest/publicity. Ultimately though this has resulted in estranged relations with the club and a definite lack of focus on representation per se. 2. The loss of David Edgar will be a defining moment for the RST. By and large he's done a fine job under unenviable circumstances. His colleagues lack his charisma so while any controversy may decline sans-Edgar, as will the effectiveness of the message. Therefore, this could be a chance for the Trust to regain focus, stay within its limits and remove itself from the firing line. 3. I'm not sure how you get round such a phenomenon. A Trust forum would be the correct route IMO but it would have to be better administrated than the poor Assembly version. The problem with not doing that is people will know that the opinions they read on places like FF especially are from senior members so aliases are soon divulged/guessed. They will also know these personal opinions will be used to formulate policy - perhaps not decide it but the opinion will be brought to the committee room. As such saying a post is personal opinion isn't a 'catch-all' get out clause; even if sometimes it is relevant to say so. All in all, I just think the Trust just have to be more professional and more active at the same time. Reading some board members' posts on FF is quite embarrassing on occasion and does nothing for their reputation in terms of leadership, unity, PR and action. That is especially valid when one realises there is hardly anywhere else for members and non-members alike to go for Trust information. FF is an important recruiting tool for the Trust and an important source of information for every Rangers fan. Unfortunately, it has got to the stage where their close involvement to FF is holding the RST back. I don't think that can be denied; despite the best efforts of some who resort to lies, defamation and subterfuge to deflect from that very obvious failing. Until the majority of the Trust board who surely would acknowledge that take action to address it, any constructive projects that people would like to participate in are arguably doomed to failure.
-
Yeah, people definitely need a model to buy into. We just won't throw our money away so we'd need to know where it was going, who was responsible for it and what it bought us in terms of increased influence. To be clear, I don't think an ownership proposal per se is likely to be successful but I think a membership scheme would be on the first step to that in the longer term.
-
Depends on income obviously but I'd like to think we could do better than Goncalves - unless the manager intends to go with Webster and Weir as first choice.
-
I've read stories elsewhere about people having problems - online and in-store mate... But you can certainly chance your hand in-store.
-
No it will be genuine mate. They won't allow even the most innocent of nicknames now.
-
I think Broadfoot is a decent player, under-rated by many bears, and I'm pretty happy he's re-signed given the valuable cover he can provide.
-
I don't see us signing Goncalves unless Wilson leaves. While his demands may not be �£18K per week, I'm sure they will be high enough to ask whether or not he'd provide value for money as a likely back-up player.
-
Much in the way I think MF has been a bit harsh on UCB, I think it's unfair to suggest that all critics must stand themselves if they're to be taken seriously. Similarly, the Trust struggle to attract new board members at the best of times so finding 20 new ones may not be as easy as it sounds As enigmablue showed us the other day, representing supporters isn't a task that should be taken lightly. It takes time, patience, money and hard work which doesn't always end up in tangible results. By the same token though, nobody is forced to volunteer, it's good fun, hugely interesting and occasionally results can be achieved to be proud of. In many ways, these organisations are also as good (or as bad) as the membership allow. So, while my criticisms in the original post are aimed at the serving board members (past and present), the rank and file (past and present) are hardly all innocent either...
-
Yes, so there must be a reason why such schemes are unable to progress much further than the conception stage. Cost, administration, neutrality, credibility and potential take-up must all be the main factors. But surely, none of these are insurmountable? IIRC, even the club have looked tentatively at member schemes so surely this is a chance for all fan groups so put their ideas together and approach the club formally.
-
But you did start such a 'campaign' in January last year. Did that alienate more people than it did attract members?
-
I find the whole GerSave thing a bit strange. Sure, it was never perfect - pricing wasn't ideal to begin with and obviously people either didn't trust the Trust (or more likely the club) with their investment. But apart from its launch year, I've never seen the initiative promoted or even mentioned again by the organisation. As such, despite raising over �£100K (although second tranche is yet to be submitted to club) the scheme hasn't been as successful as we'd all have hoped. I know other clubs were interested in the format and I know the hard work and finance that went into setting it up but it now seems completely off the radar. I'd also have thought it could be amended to provide a method of a membership scheme and/or ownership attempt. Now, promotion costs money while legal/advisor fees for amendment cost even more but in all the time the Trust are quoted in the media, on the radio, in online debate and in their relationship with other groups, GerSave is hardly ever mentioned (if at all). Why is that?
-
Sounds like a decent idea to me Wabash. I don't know much (anything!) about such accounts though. Who would administrate it?
-
MF: It may not be personal per se but I think you've made your point so am just asking we move the debate on. It is now up to UCB to prove you wrong via action and he's hoping to do that. After all that will speak louder than words. I think the original post was clear in so much as 'rocking the boat' to try and find the real answers to the questions we share. I don't think we'll find those answers by concentrating on the one serving board member who is prepared to take the time to contribute on here. UCB is a big boy and I'm sure he can handle any criticism (personal or otherwise) but I don't want people to go into defensive mode when we can all talk like adults and hopefully share information that could benefit us all.
