plgsarmy

At the planning meeting on Thursday we had no idea how many would turn up. I think we agreed that 5000 would be great but that exceeded all expectations. I think we should also thank Sandy Jardine who put his neck on the line by signing the permit for this.

He is a supporter who is hurting and angry like the rest of us. You can't argue with anything he says.

You know what Shane, sometimes when you go in with a sarcastic or agressive comment you can't really complain when you get the same back. I've noticed some of the things you have posted mainly on RM and when you make personal comments about one of our Board members having tea with his mum when his mum passed away in December then I find that disappointing. I realise that you probably didn't know that but don't believe everything you read about people on websites. I read today that this person made £100K for himself running events. If that was the case then I doubt he'd be running around in a 15 year old car and be living in a four in a block in Knightswood. All this seems to have started because we didn't go with your tee shirt idea. I'm not sure what feedback you got on that but I've gone back and checked the emails and most of us thought it was a good idea but it was problematic because you are based in the USA (shipping costs etc) and that some of the funding was going to your own RSC which others may not have been keen on. Personally, I would have sent your info onto Andy Kerr for forwarding to NARSA but I don't know what was done. Nobody at the Trust doubted your sincerity or the fact you only wanted to help the Club but at the time we were being swamped by people with ideas and we went with the Red and Black scarves. I have to say that I never use Twitter and I wasn't really in favour of us going on it but realise we have to move with the times. I'm not trying to make excuses but the guys on there have had to put up with a lot of abuse so maybe sometimes they don't respond the way people would hope. They are only human after all and I think we all just want to get back to talking about the football.

Not really Craig, BH only said that he wanted to say why he resigned, I don't think it was the auditor's place to second guess what he was going to say.

BD, just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that you said that I had lied and I'm sorry it came across that way. Obviously, if BH had heard what had been said then he could have said that what he had to say was pertinent to the accounts and we could have avoided what subsequently happened. Regarding the minutes, I see they have not been posted on our website and I'll try to get that rectified.

Bluedell, we spoke about this privately at the time and we disagreed with what was said but as it has been brought up again I will answer. TB and BH were sitting near you so I have to accept that the Chairman's voice did not carry to where you were sitting. I actually e-mailed the auditor to ask what her recollection was regarding what was said and it was the same as mine. We were discussing the financial part of the accounts when BH got up and said he wanted to read out a statement regarding why he had resigned a secretary. I can't remember the precise words used but it was along the lines of that it was not the appropriate part of the meeting and he should bring it up during the Q&A at the end. I would swear to that on my son's life. I am not a liar but I also know that you and TB are not either. I wish that BH had waited and made his statement as it could possibly have been put to bed at that stage without people still posting misleading information about it 18 months later.

Calscot, I'm obviously going to defend the organisation of which I am a member, you may agree with me or not. 1) Gersnet, or any other forum, is not a fan's group. Forums (or should it be fora?) are predominently faceless people who only have to give an e-mail and a moniker to join. With the RST. I could give you the name and addresses of all our members (I won't). 2) I see the RST a bit like a political party. There are people who join as members and there are many others who support a party without being a member. I'm also aware there are others who think they are a waste of space. 3) I don't believe that the majority of people over the years have joined the RST because they believe in fan ownership. At the beginning we were perceived as an organisation who was going to stand up to SDM and many fans didn't like that. We were then seen by some as sucking up to SDM and others didn't like that. It's a bit unfortunate but our membership seems to rise when there is trouble or a lack of success at the club. 4) We are the only group (as far as I can see) that any supporter can join and anyone can stand for election to the Board and have a say in shaping how we operate. 5) Our visibility and being able to engage with supporters has increased dramatically with the popularity of Facebook and Twitter. 6) We have had a policy for several years now that statements are first e-mailed to members, then posted on our site. Only then do other sites pick these up or not in some cases. We have over the years tried to go on a variety of websites but with some frankly there is no point.

Wasn't that the Oscar Wilde quote - 'We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars'? If not I think it's been ripped off.

What has the RST said?

If it had been given for the smash against Ledley it would have been harsh but if you look at Wanyama's hand the ball changes direction after it hits his hand. Clear penalty.

You seem to conveniently forget that the bid is also supported by the Assembly and Association but you don't seem to be having a go at them.

Frankie, you know how these things work and that's not what I was saying.

Frankie, I said I didn't know, there may be others who do and I can try to find out but remember this deal was only agreed last week.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. All I said was that if I had information that hadn't been made public that I wouldn't post it on the Internet. I'm unsure why that would cause divisions in the support.

I didn't miss it Frankie, I ignored it.:blush: The truth is that I don't know but, even if I did, I wouldn't give out any information that TBK haven't made public. I don't think that would be the right thing to do. If TBK are successful then there will be a full prospectus issued so that anyone investing knows what they are buying into.

Bears, read that back again and consider how ridiculous that sounds. There has been an on-going campaign against Mark for five years now, started because he banned a few of his so-called mates from Follow, Follow. This has consisted mainly of lies and innuendo but in the overall scheme of things it's a pretty small minority and Mark has very many more friends than enemies. In addition, as Frankie has indicated, anyone representing the fans on the Rangers Board will be elected. He's done a really good job in the media recently but even that was a role he didn't want but nobody else stepped up.

Frankie, the supporters groups spoke with Paul Murray but also said they were open to talking to any bidder.

Sir David Murray and Craig Whyte are not part of TBK.

No he wasn't. He was appointed as a non-executive director in 2007.

Anyone know why we would still owe the Murray Group nearly a quarter of a million quid?

I'm totally gobsmacked by that list of creditors.

You've lost me.

B, presumably because of the negativity it received on some websites who thought it was the RST who organised it.

What do they mean by touted? Is this suggesting that we were seeking credit for it? I was at the meeting on Monday and everyone in attendance agreed on this action. This was reflected in our statement. I'm sure Andy would have preferred his name to be kept out of it but when idiots on another website start questioning the concept and the funding (because they think it's from the RST) then maybe he felt he had to step in. Sad really, maybe some were just pissed off that Andy didn't invite them.

I'm not sure if he's on the committee but he does deal with the Assembly Facebook page so if the enquiry was made via that then this is why he may have replied.