Frankie

Here's something for you to chew on with your peers... The duration of the upcoming AGM is hugely important. Instead of 30-45mins, 2-3 hours is required for real debate. Now, the unified fan organisations should be calling for that publicly to ensure it happens. That is something that everyone would agree with and thus some common ground would be found. Something small but solid to build on.

Good post TB... I agree some questions may be outdated by December so all the more reason to have as many submitted as possible in the mean-time. Some can be easily altered should circumstances change during the next 3 weeks or so.

In recent years 30-45mins seem the norm for questions from the floor... That is nowhere near enough obviously so I'd like to think 2 hours is a more realistic timescale - even if, like you say, that won't be enough.

On the morning of Monday December 7th, thousands of Rangers shareholders will again converge on Ibrox Stadium to find out the latest information about the club. Most directors will be there - including new chairman Alastair Johnston and alleged Lloyds Bank stooge Donald Muir - so this will be the supporters' chance to question them on recent events. Obviously there has been a lot of debate in the media about the current situation at the club. Why did Sir David Murray step down? Is Alastair Johnston really in control? What influence do the bank have on the business? What part does the bleak future of Murray International Holdings play? How will the next two transfer windows affect our team on the park? What happens if we don't qualify for the Champions' League next season? Can the fans own the club? Would Alastair Johnston consider an interim measure to give the support increased representative powers? We could go on all day here but we want to hear your suggestions... Get involved and post now. Or if preferred email to settingthestandard@gersnetonline.co.uk

spanner: Obviously there is a lot of different spin and comment going on which isn't easy to believe - be it from fan reps, Alistair Johnston, Martin Bain or Lloyds. I don't know who is right so what we have is a situation where we're being asked to buy into solving a problem that doesn't yet exist officially. That's not to say it doesn't (surely the finance rumours can't all be wrong but surely AJ wouldn't be setting himself up for a fall in January either) but we need more to make up our minds. On December 7th is the Rangers AGM. That is where we can all have our say of the club (and Donald Muir) - possibly not in as open/transparent manner as we'd like but it's a start. At that event we have to ensure we're all asking the right questions and taking the debate in the correct direction. We can do that individually and/or we can use our websites/fan groups/projects to apply concentrated pressure. From the answers there we can then plan more effectively. As such, if I were the RST or the Assembly or the Association or a RSC secretary or a website owner, I'd be contacting each other to ensure the correct questions were asked. I'd be immediately and publicly asking for an extended AGM to ensure everyone can have their say. From this initial consultation and the AGM perhaps a larger scale, more open/neutral event could be organised which concentrated fully on the ownership issue to information share, invite feedback and hopefully flush out the kind of people required to front such an important time for our support. These people may not get involved via the RST or the Assembly but they may be more interested if it wasn't limited to 'official' fan groups. In the mean-time I'd urge everyone to avoid petty arguments as what is often lost is that we're all Rangers fans. Disagreements aside that shouldn't be forgotten so let's keep the debate healthy, and not waste energy fighting each other as opposed to the real battles that may be upon us.

So they back the Dave King proposal without knowing the facts but not a different model which I think most people agree is possibly the best route forward for creating genuine interest and credibility? Glad to see my comments above about niot jumping in with both feet have been taken into account already... Seriously, I - like most bears - look forward to hearing more.

No-one is suggesting you do shoulder the blame. In fact you are to be commended for taking the time to visit other forums and face the very people your colleagues so easily insult and dismiss while preaching about unity. In saying that, some of boss' questions remain unanswered and that doesn't help anyone make their mind up. Some people find it too easy to make two distinct camps in RST debates. There are of course but the majority are in neither. Those majority will have the same questions boss has - no matter his intentions. Not answering them harms you more than him. IMHO of course...

So what's next? How is this unity going to form itself over the coming weeks? When will the other websites etc be brought into the debate so what MD spoke of at GersPride is actually the truth of the matter? Conversely, if there were another initiative ongoing in the background where high net worth investors and ex-players were involved, would the RST back it publicly? Even if another website(s) and personality(s) were involved that they've insulted over the last 2-3 days.

"Having held fire for a number of weeks the crisis has reached such a pitch that the three organisations felt the need to publicly thrown their weight behind the King bid and give clear leadership to the Rangers Family." I didn't read that 'pre-statement' statement on the Trust/Assembly/Association websites - only on FF - so perhaps it was flawed but that seems like a clear commitment to me. If I was a Trust member, I'd be rather annoyed by that statement without clear details of why that commitment was agreed being made available to me - which didn't happen as far as I know. I'd also be asking what had changed now and how the board were going to act on hearing about any new bids.

The number of participants is small but these people are opinion-formers to coin a phrase. As such, their input is important and others will take note of it - even in an offline sense. I also appreciate your relatively new position means you're not party to what decisions were made for what reasons before. However, you do know they happened and so you must appreciate that some people (again not me) find the sudden call for unity somewhat galling and hypocritical. That may mean emotion is prevalent is posts but that doesn't mean these posts are null and void. There are still concerns and questions about the overall dynamic - not just in a personality sense either. The reluctance to answer these coupled with the subsequent tedious insults elsewhere isn't helping expedite the process. In saying that, I'd much rather look forward than back so am happy to leave some of those and the petty accusations/personal tripe in the past. So, what next? Let's move forward.

Morning - I'll separate your post into two replies as they're two rather different subjects. Firstly, I don't think it was a warm public signal. I think it was a premature attempt to get in bed with someone who had offered nothing to accommodate such support at this stage. Yes, the situation is somewhat desperate but that only means we should be more measured in our decision-making. Had the RST membership backed their organisation backing the King bid? I agree not all that much harm was done but some people I spoken with do think the RST appeared too eager to jump on the first bus to come along without considering other options available. Other options are still available is my understanding. Do the Trust publicly back every potential buyer? Surely you need to know more before doing so?

Another great post rbr...

Excellent post EB...

I've not been on RM yet today so not sure if you (or TB) replied there. However, ignoring perfectly valid questions just because the intent may be seen by some as mischievous is rather disappointing. I've not heard about some of the stuff Boss mentions (despite the disingenuous attempts by Trust board members to lump as together elsewhere) so it may be his information is incorrect. Ergo, I'd suggest answering his questions that are relevant to the RST is a better way of showing that as opposed to saying his opinion doesn't count for whatever reason. I think I've said to you before that representing the Trust online is somewhat of a thankless task. Separating the honest concerns from the more obtuse isn't always easy and arguably shouldn't even be attempted as ignoring anyone is not the way to go. That is exactly why we have people arguing on here, on RM, on VB and on FF. Far be from me to tell you how to suck eggs of course....

I don't know why the guy was banned and I certainly didn't ban him. I do know GCL has been warned for making timposter allegations before and was again over the weekend. As were people on here for similar behaviour the other day.

If the first part of that statement is true then people would be daft to cut off their nose to spite their face. However, that doesn't mean Zappa's comments are somehow unfair or invalid. The RST does have a perception problem when coupled with the overall fan apathy problem. Add in the fact that us being top of the league (with Utd win), then fans simply won't believe a fans group when compared to what the club are saying. That is a huge problem and without the credible backing I've talked about earlier, even the best of schemes could fail. One only needs look at the superb GerSave scheme for evidence of that. With respect, ignore that at your peril ahead of investing thousands of pounds and man hours in altering that.

I'm taking this a post at a time, so apologies if I miss something that is mentioned later in the thread that makes this reply moot. From recent events, and from looking at other forums this morning, the RST have not cleared their minds as you suggest. I accept some criticism aimed at them is strong, possibly ill-informed and may not help the situation for all of us. That is frustrating. However, I fail to see how reacting in the same ill-informed way along with petty insults about forums who are permitting such debate is leading from the front, offering olive branches or projecting unity. Such hot air will slow us down and such hot air isn't helping any of us. That goes for everyone obviously.

So, the alteration of GerSave appears to be the leading strategy for allowing fans to buy into an ownership model? That makes sense. Apparently Dave King is out of the running to buy the club - that has been suggested by a few people now including Colin Glass. The RST had publicly backed this bid which I think was a bit of a strategic error which points to premature decisions being made. How can you guarantee such errors won't be made again? With regard to MD, the point I was making wasn't to do with his website but specifically the RST. As you know, they refuse to get involved in projects out with FF so my concern is that some (although not me) will use this as a fairly valid reason not to get involved with RST led projects now. How do MD and the RST intend overcoming that given I've seen further inter forum squabbles and insults on FF this morning simply because of this small, but interesting debate? I agree problems should be left in the past and I have attempted to do this unsuccessfully recently with MD and the Trust. What has changed on their side of the fence now?

Having being unable to get involved in the debate for the last few days, I think I'll start here with regard to the perception being put about that a lesser traffic forum like Gersnet is somehow anti-Trust. The fact is it isn't. Sure, a few posters may have a few legitimate concerns about how the organisation has developed in recent times but, for the most part, these concerns are raised via fair and valid questions and reasonable, sensible debate. Anyone trying to suggest anything else from this (while shirking from taking part themselves) only goes to show just how valid these concerns are. Certainly the usual complaints and misreading of the situation accompanied with petulant insults elsewhere show the existence of any olive branch appears questionable. A pity as I know myself and others are eager to help unify fans in a genuine, tangible sense as shown several months back (and in an ongoing fashion) via the STS project. Of course, once again, the olive branch was ignored then and we're to blame now for simply asking what the difference is in circumstances. For the record, Gersnet are wholly willing to help in any capacity with regard to supporter's opinions being represented in an open, constructive fashion. I know for a fact that the Assembly and Association remain keen to retain that involvement so we look forward to working with them and anyone else looking to improve the fortunes of our club.

Thanks for posting that BD... It was an excellent night and a huge thanks to Chryson for their invite and hospitality!

PS: I'm away to bed now as I have a big night out tomorrow... It may be Tuesday before I can come back to this. Like I say, appreciate you taking the time to answer all our questions UCB and let's hope there is a brighter future for the club involving the fans!

The fan groups said they were backing the Dave King bid? Is this confirmation he is no longer in a position to buy? Furthermore, senior Trust board members have said that MIH/SDM will not receive a penny for their shareholding. You suggest that isn't true. Who is right? All seems a bit confusing to me. How will it then look to other bears who're perhaps less interested in this type of off-the-field politics.

With respect, I'd expect all that as a matter of course so am surprised and somewhat disappointed there wasn't anything more concrete available today for interested fans to buy into considering the media coverage the fan groups had over the last couple of weeks... I don't think anyone expected registration forms and backing to be given out today by Richard Gough and Graeme Souness but it seems you're some way off having anything concrete ready to roll out. Surely you can divulge a little bit more to whet our appetites? Perhaps your answers to my other questions may help clear the waters somewhat. I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

Disgraceful organisation from the Romanian's. Our club should know exactly what tragedies can unfold from such unacceptable facilities and conditions. Sections of the media should be ashamed of themselves by not taking the eye-witness reports and videos into account before embarrassing themselves.

Few more questions that I would have asked if present... How much is it going to cost to alter and administrate GerSave to become a model capable of progressing fan ownership? Do the Trust have the funds/resources in place to do this? Now that a credible senior former Trust member has suggested Dave King is no longer involved in trying to buy the club, who are the Trust behind now given they publicly backed King's bid 2 weeks ago? I believe Mark Dingwall spoke of unity amongst all the fan groups and websites? Does he or they intend organising some kind of meeting on how best to utilise this unity? Why should people attend whose credible projects he didn't back and personally attacked only a few months ago? I'm all for water under the bridge of course but you'll understand my puzzlement at this change of tact. Genuinely interested in the answers to all these (and the ones posted previously).