Frankie

Wait a minute OOA - The only reason I didn't quote the rest of the post because it was equally tedious and has already been covered in depth. But, here it is again for those concerned about the context... 1. The article was released to NewsNow to generate traffic for RM. In exactly the way this site, FF and the RST (previously at least) do. Nothing wrong with that. 2. The article was written to convey doubt about Duffy's credentials - doubt many fans agree with and deserve to know about. Sure, as I've said several times, perhaps Boss should have left out the RST digs but that is only deflecting from the more important message in the article. 3. I fail to see how valid questions about Duffy and the Trust is 'sanctimonious guff'? Such 'benign' questions were asked of the Trust in other threads and received the same aggressive, abusive response from the poster making these threats now. 4. It is not the Rangers fans' responsibility to ensure Duffy's background was beyond reproach and his intentions clear before he (and the Trust allegedly) went to the press. We can only make our minds up based on the information available to us and I thank Boss for helping us form an initial conclusion before we know more. If all the above is behaviour of Celtic fans then I'm confused. It is the actions of Rangers fans interested in the whole issue and ensuring everyone is in receipt of the facts before they're asked to invest their hard-earned cash into a business led by someone with a dubious history and a group more eager to dish out the insults and threats rather than answer simple questions. How would you describe that behaviour? Is that typical of a Rangers fan?

That is outrageous. My facial hair is certainly not ginger! :spl:

Obviously the meaning can be interpreted differently but, like you say, it's hardly the kind of comment that is helpful to the organisation. At the very least it is rather intimidating and totally out of place.

Well noticed Fraser.... I'll do Saturday - talk amongst yourselves for the other games. Can all previews be posted before Friday am (i.e. on Thursday night or earlier)

This is the post when discussing Boss' article: I can understand a bit of umbrage at Boss' lampooning of the Trust in the article but these kind of comments along with the paranoid rantings of Mark Dingwall yesterday are quite frankly ludicrous.

wabash: Firstly welcome to the forum. Secondly, what is different this time is that SDM would no longer be responsible for any investment as was the case with the 2005 share issue you mention. As such, it is likely any take up of an ownership scheme would be more successful - depending on who is involved. Your point about confusing information is most valid and that is one that I hope to see addressed at the club AGM next week. Similarly, the fan groups do need to do more so I'm encouraged with the Assembly's comments of yesterday compared to the disgraceful actions of (some of) those representing the RST. Unfortunately those people still seem intent on making alleged 'tims with hatchet jobs answer for their behaviour' for asking reasonable questions of Graham Duffy's background. Make of that threat what you will. Unity and leadership it certainly is not.

I don't think Broadfoot is of Rangers quality historically speaking but, generally, he's done OK and has proven himself more reliable than the likes of Whittaker defensively. As such his return to fitness is a boost for this bear who shuts his eyes any time an opposition team attack down our right hand side. Good to see Ness, Lennon and Loy doing well also.

New competition this Friday!

Winners were: Redford Inside Left William Gray (external entry) Ross Burns (external entry) Bill Munn (external entry) Congratulations to you all - I'll forward your details onto Birlinn and they'll send you your prize asap. Thanks to Birlinn as ever for their support!

I think that DD says is correct unfortunately...

I'm no politics expert so why on earth would a Trade Union lobby want to involve themselves in something like this?

That's what I don't get about the abuse we read today. It was totally unwarranted and didn't help anyone - least of all the Trust. I don't think anyone was dismissing any potential investor (or fan group) - just asking valid questions about their suitability and what they are actually offering in terms of being the new owner. Anything less than that would be remiss of us given the future of our club is at stake - not to mention any financial investment we make into schemes. This goes for any potential buyer or anyone asking for our money. I'm sure that if Mr Duffy is genuine in that regard he'll accept (and answer) the questions about his business background in good faith as I'm equally sure the people working with him in any alleged consortium will have done exactly the same. The facts are Rangers FC is up for sale and the bank appear eager to expedite this. As such, we all want this sale to go through as soon as possible but not without ensuring we have a buyer and a plan that stands up to scrutiny. Our club has been built upon high standards and any buyer should be of that level. I look forward to hearing more from the Trust and the Assembly in that regard as I retain a keen interest in ensuring the supporters play their part in any new era.

The Assembly, the Association and the Trust have been working together for a few months now. I don't think anyone will have a problem with that as long as is the case, we have openness and honesty from the outset. That's all people are asking for here - yet you'd think we were threatening people's families.

Welcome to Gersnet mate... A nice story of days gone by that we'll have our own version of. Nowadays, you and he would probably get the jail. Just hope you don't smoke or you'd be really evil...

I sincerely hope so...

Indeed - it is simple enough to dismiss concerns without that kind of complete loss of discipline. I'm absolutely astounded at the reaction to what was a worthy addition to the debate from boss - digs at the RST aside.

Disheartened is not the word. At least I know now in writing why the STS project was ignored by FF and the RST.

http://www.thebluenose.co.uk/news/assembly-news/club-financial-position---assembly-meeting-summary-november-2009-20091201304/ Interesting developments from the Assembly and given their professional and inclusive behaviour of late, I'm sure we'll all want to know more about what they offer. I don't know any fan who isn't interested in the concept of the fans playing a broader role in the running of the club and how this can be achieved. As ever, the devil is in the detail though, so hopefully the wider support will be consulted with given the Assembly's 'official' representative status.

I don't think anyone will be overly critical of you minding your Ps and Qss about the people involved. I've always said confidence is a necessary evil of which no-one can find a cure for. Most reasonable people will certainly agree with your outlook and wish you good luck in your endevours. A pity then that your eloquence is ruined by your colleague in the post below on FF: It is that kind of post along with the hypocrisy contained within it that good, honest people like yourself are up against when attempting to reach out to others. Quite frankly it's disgraceful and anyone interested in the Rangers Supporters Trust will be appalled by such unfair, inaccurate and derogatory remarks simply because other people have asked a few basic questions about what is happening.

Welcome to the site... We may not always agree but you'll find it is done so eloquently and fairly on here... :box:

Indeed. Which is exactly why the RST should not have publicly backed this person without knowing of his intentions and background sufficiently well beforehand. Of course your media colleagues are suggesting the quotes attributed to David Edgar in the NOTW are false. You seem to be suggesting otherwise. Which is it as I certainly don't want to criticise people for saying something that didn't even happen?

Again that's all fair enough but you must concede that the Trust aren't just watching with interest but are arguably help conduct the peak/trough media circus by making the wrong comment at the wrong time. Much better, IMHO, keeping silent until something tangible can be brought to the table. Then people can make up their mind on the project's own merits without the tainting of poor participation from different sides of the debate. To be clear I don't think anyone is being unreasonable in their criticisms but the reaction from Trust reps has been bizarre. You can only lose out with such stuff - no matter where it is posted. No-one wins out of that considering we all want a better Rangers.

Fortunately for us I don't think UCB is as petty as some of his peers on the Trust board.

I think indirectly in this case means that they did simply pick it from the website. Scottish Television has a chap registered on both here and RM so I assume he seen it, and got approval to publish it from his gaffer.

The bank doing such a thing is interesting but along with Murray, I'd imagine there will be legal/financial restrictions on what they can do in that regard. That's before we even get past the image problems of Murray - shown by the 2005 share issue. Duffy or King or the RST or whoever need to ensure their public image is spotless before moving forward with such a scheme. I think the initial finance could be raised if the right people are involved, if the supporters get their say and if the model is flawless. However, your point about ongoing finance is arguably the biggest hurdle to all of this.