bmck

Where has anyone shown they can't follow it? But that's not the entirety of your realisation, though. You go slightly further. If your entire point was "Pathological hatred of the trust gives them a way out" you'd be right, and you wouldn't have a word of disagreement from me. But you go onto to think people haven't made that realisation - which shows you haven't read around here much - and that if everyone came to that realisation we'd be any closer to a newer better RST with the kind of changes you've mentioned. I've said that's just wrong, I done my best to explain why it's wrong, and if you disagree that's fine. What are you even talking about? I accept you have a different opinion, but don't value it so much I won't stop from calling it wrong. Opinions can be wrong; I think yours is, you think MF's is. That's what debate is for heaven's sake, no need to be so touchy.

I think you're far too caught up in thinking people aren't getting the 'thrust of your point' to realise that they do, but you're wrong. People coming to your 'epiphany' won't even begin to untangle the web because nothing in the dynamics of who has the power to do what will have changed, we'll all just walk around with futilely enlightened expressions. The trust has it within their power to ignore the piggy backing and address the substance - that they won't shows, beyond all doubt, that they're not going to have to with a smaller group of substance alone. No matter how many epiphanies are had by how many people, nothing in the dynamic changes. It's a case of: "Will you please stop doing this and engage those whom you're supposed to represent more?" "No" versus "We realise you're not all bad, will you please stop doing this and engage those whom you're supposed to represent more?" "No." I'm ill and away to do more sensible things.

I'll just ignore the bits where we agree. This is wrong, but only by degree. It only partially explains how no headway has been made. It's true that this is the way they've chosen to avoid their owngoals. It's also true that without this avenue being available, they couldn't have used it. So, it would seem to make perfect sense that headway would be made with the own goals and this way of getting out it not being available. But unfortunately stuff that seems to make perfect sense and look perfectly obvious does so because it's just far too simple. This is the key question. You think removing the obstacles will put you on a better footing to force debate. It won't. Sorry, but this is just naive. Their failure to answer valid arguments historically is what caused the disregard that, in places, has become slightly pathological. If you ignore the practical and ethical consequences of silencing nonsense, it just puts you back to the valid arguments that they ignored in other ways beforehand. Casting doubt on the aspersions and motives of those who question you is the most effective way not to be accountable; it's far from the only way. Do you honestly think that if none of the claims you think have gone too far had happened the debate would have been forced? The changes that are required would have occurred? It's naive in the extreme. If you take a step back - the own goal, the harsh response, the middle response, the Trust's response to the response, you see it's all panned out roughly as it had to. If people who truly hate the Trust hadn't went all lynch-mob it may not even have come to light, and certainly wouldn't have got as much circulation. It wouldn't have spawned debate, and wouldn't have forced the Trust, yet again, into playing the man instead of the ball. Nothing happens immediately, but in the longer term actually reasonable people - they people required to move the Trust forward - look at it all. They see dodgy motives, they see dishonourable retorts to valid questions, and they make their own conclusions. There's only so long it can be evil conspirators with bad motives, and the important people - the people in the middle who neither pathologically hate nor support the trust - assess things. One such person is ascender - the most reasonable and charitable person you can meet. He's sick of the back and forth, and doesn't care about he-said she-said but feels, rightly, that whatever the rights and wrongs his reasonable questions have been ignored. He's the type of person that the Trust needs - there's no other way forward. So while these 'obstacles' that the Trust use appear to let them 'win' in their self preservation in the short term, they do so at the expense of their long term credibility in the eyes of the people who, over time, and when they've gone off to do other things, and become a feint shadow, will matter. You solution - effectively to censor to harsher elements of criticism - only serves to deny these people who matter what they are being denied at the moment by the Trust: the ability to look at all the facts, hear the range of the debate, and make up their own mind. Censoring the harsher elements only disenfranchises them - often extremely nice people who are just sick of not being addressed by thoes who are supposed to represent them, sometimes not - and treat everyone else like idiots, incapable of making decisions on their own. I agree with you that this has been an effective way out for the Trust, but I disagree that it being removed would have us any further forward - most probably ten steps back.

I can't believe that you can't buy tickets for the Valencia game without buying them for the Man U game at any point. Disgraceful!

I don't think you have. I think you think you're the only one here aware that the response to this has helped the Trust out of any accountability, but you're not. There's no flaw in any argument, it's just the discrepancy between moral and effectual (as yer man Machiavelli would have it) truth. The trust, as a flawless and certain moral truth, should engage their members irrespective of background noise, and even when it's not comfortable, is 100% certain. There's no flaws in that. That the background noise can be used, effectually, to insidiously maneuver out of any criticism doesn't make it right. But the underlying point remains the same - the Trust's history of not engaging their members predates the hatred that abounds, and perhaps even caused it. The flaw in your argument is the thought that removing it will make any difference, and the costs of removing it is to stifle free and open debate - the very thing that the Trust needs if it's ever going to achieve its aims. You're entirely flawed in thinking that removing excessive criticism would move anyone any further forward because both the cost of doing it would be too high, and because it's the will to avoid debate that makes the background noise an excuse, and this will wouldn't change, only find some new way of presenting itself. I think you've stumbled onto the realisation that it's the nature of the criticism that's got the Trust out of accountability in this, which is correct, but have erronously followed this premise to the conclusion that the solution is to get rid of that sort of criticism. That's entirely flawed. This is absolute nonsense, I'm afraid. Practicing badly is what allows you to cite people for bad practice. That these 'obstacles' are used in this manner is a consequence of the will not to engage, not to a cause. Removing them changes nothing, but surrenders the high ground of openess, which is the only possible way this Trust or any future incarnation can go forward.

I'm not sure which comment you're talking about, but I do broadly agree with you that hyperbolic criticism gives them an avenue to cast doubts on the motives of any questions - and in questioning the motives of the questioner you don't need to answer anyone's questions as they all begin tainted. However, the answer can't be to mirror the Trust's approach - you can't delete threads and stiffle subjects of debate because they're unhelpful in the opposite sense and for the opposite reasons. There's no sensible alternative to letting people say what they want and trusting in the good judgement of people to decide for themselves. If the Trust adopted this approach themselves I think they'd be suprised to find how capable people are of discerning dodgy motives for themselves. If you honestly want to silence criticism that's too harsh because it can be misused you have to trust in the people doing the silencing to know better than everyone else, and in general terms, they don't.

It's not an excuse that would be used by honourable leadership, though. Even if there were only reasonable criticism, it wouldn't make any difference I don't imagine.

Unfortunately nothing can justify throwing out reasonable objections because of unreasonable ones. The bad thing about actually allowing debate is that unreasonable things come out; it's just that all the other alternatives stifle any form of debate. In essence, they are using unreasonable objections as a convenient way out of answering any at all, just like David Murray would, and they absolutely can be blamed for that.

He'd've scored an OG and you'd've said it was a good finish

Aye, most probably - I can definitely remember thinking he started poorly but came onto a game. I think he's got a good intuitive sense of where to be - hopefully his touch and stuff will progress. He's another relative youngster too, is he not?

Only when it's due, which, is... aye... 'always' you're right (I'm also not letting the fact I watched on Sky plus after it had actually finished cloud my claims for credit either )

Seriously? He pressed at every turn and hardly lost a ball!

Edu has to me to thank for his fantastic performance last night. He lost the ball early on, and I said "Aw damnit Edu, you're too often ponderous on the ball!" - he clearly heard, because he never lost a ball again all night. Fantastic performance.

I never said you did. I'm just (naively perhaps) asking you a straight question and expecting a straight answer. To be blunt, no. I think they're an attempt to redirect focus from the actually valid questions you (and the RST) continually refuse to answer. Sounds strangely similar to "I'm not saying this issue isn't important but..." and "I'm not a racist but..." I'd started to type out the questions again, but my honest opinion, from what I've read here, is that you're not genuinely interested in answering questions, and so I won't waste my time or yours. I honestly think you'd argue a square was a circle if it defended the trust. This shows commendible loyalty to the board colleagues you like, and your friends, but a regrettable lack of loyalty to the people, the members of the trust, with genuine questions to whom you're supposed to be responsible. Lots of people from both sides of the debate here have defended you personally, and I'm quite sure that actually knowing you they're right, but that's what I think and I'm only going by what I've read here.

We arrra peeeepelll!

Do you think Alan's dishonest, and a trouble maker? Instead of trying to discredit one of your colleagues, why don't you answer Frankie's questions, or any of the number of decent reasonable ones on the thread?

If I were cynical I'd say because it's the most pragmatically effective way to make this go away. It's certainly how how David Murray has gone about it: make the noisy vitriolic objections the entire objection, and use general apathy and dislike of noise to ride the reasonable objections out. By effectively poisoning the well, and saying objections are agenda-driven, your post now can only be viewed honestly with effort and against a background of suggestion of lurking agendas etc.

wabash you've got an excellent way of asking a single question

I'm sorry, but shifting the focus to malicious intent or financial gain is exactly an attempt, it would seem to me, to undermine the importance of this. The 'mistakes made' (or, as someone who wasn't trying to undermine the importance would say it "the mistakes we made"), and the manner in which the board has split to each accuse the other of bad intentions, is the important issue - namely, that the RST is showing itself to make mistakes that are irresponsible with money, disunited and be less than transparent in dealing with it. These 'mistakes made' would never have come to public light, if your hand weren't forced. No matter how the issue may be undermined by tactically pointing at agendas and good intentions and all these other things, these mistakes are serious for people without an agenda, and are the very things that aren't being addressed meaningfully. Saying "Yeah, our bad" (or, "Yeah, bad's occurred") only because it's come to light, and it's pragmatically necessary to do so, just isn't good enough, imho.

Apologies for the continued questions, but there's been so much nudge nudge wink wink about this whole affair that those of us with limited access to information are left trying to parse a lot of information since very little's been officially said. So just so there's a note, taking names from the website: Stephen Smith and Gordon Dinnie will no longer be involved in the leadership of the RST? PLG will be, but as an ordinary board member, and the person involved in the transaction (Mark Dingwall) is unaffected? Are these changes, where they are, a direct consequence of all this, or have they left for other reasons? Will any of this be made public in a statement, do you know?

Thanks for replying. As a member, but someone who isn't party to any insider knowledge or behind the scenes info - who are these people? I can guess plgsarmy and the person to whom the money was loaned.

. Who were the mistakes made by?

Yup, undermining the person who's making the allegations don't make them go away - this approach won't work, and the only possible way out now is honesty. There may very well be another side to all of this, but while people are left to fill in the blanks unchallenged they'll naturally do so in a way that confirms their own views.

I think it's disappointing that this defense of the trust starts, as they do all too often, with a personal attack on the person who is criticising - this time a fellow board member.

Agreed, I can't even parse it, it's so dense with utter absurdity. It doesn't even matter how much is true and accurate now. That things could get to this state can't be written off to malcontents or some sort of anti-RST sentiment - no matter who you are sympathetic to the whole situation just shows one entirely dysfunctional organisation.