plgsarmy

I think you'll find that most of the inaccuracies about the RST come from closer to home. Like Gersnet, I've always found VB to trade in facts and strive for the truth.

 

I'll assume you simply found my question too difficult.

Why not repeat the question then I'll know what you're talking about? So, when VB stated that the RST made a profit of �£20K last year and a loss this year, was that a fact? Did they strive for the truth despite the accounts being audited by professionals?

It's not .... but I do like to see what all sides are saying. I always saw VB as a good and commited Rangers site but it sounds like you see something wrong with it, what's the problem, what do you have agoinst the good folks on VB.

 

Did you just forget to answer my question?

What question was that Maineflyer, perhaps I missed it? As for VB, I'm sure there are many committed Rangers fans on there but many of their posts about the RST have been, let's say, 'inaccurate' and not based on facts.

I'd be delighted to .... but I can't .... it's not my theory. Have a look over on Vanguardbears, where you'll find all the enlightenment you require.

Since you seem like someone who knows what's going on, perhaps you might enlighten everyone else by clearing up who DID organise and pay for those banners.

If that is where you get RST info from then it explains a lot.

I can act in my own best interests, thank you very much.

Good for you.:box:

I clarified my post by stating that if my interpretation of events, based on the paucity of information, was wrong then that was perhaps more a fault of those involved for not clarifying the situation. Instead fans on the outside, or even then RST members had had to make a decision based on the information available.

 

It is also my understanding (with reference to the part of your post highlighted in red) that the meeting you refer to was conducted under somewhat nefarious means and was actually held behind the chairman's back and broke RST rules. My recollection of the precise events here is somewhat hazy and you will quite rightly point out that I am basing my opinion again on one version of events. Again I blame those involved for playing not being entirely open about what was going on.

 

I do not mean to blame you personally, I don't know who you are outwith your online moniker, but I do realise that my statements must obviously be seen as an attack on yourself. I do not even blame all current RST members. Union City Blue who posted on here seemed like a welcome addition to the RST board, he was honest and open to criticism I felt. However, there are certainly members of the board who appear to be out for their own interests ahead of that of the club. No better highlighted than by the fact that there was no support for STS imo. You can say that you felt it was doomed to failure, but if it was an RST or FF driven initiative you (the RST as a whole) would still have supported it even in spite of the expected negative outcome. So that excuse will not wash with me.

 

Whilst we can perhaps see there are some disingenuous (sp) characters who will not support the RST and appear to want to attack it whatever the trust achieves, I don't think that applies to myself or some on here. I think the RST now is too driven by ego that the trust and it's supporters are afraid of an wary of all and any criticism, even if the intentions are hounourable.

 

That's just how I see things as a now outsider and imagine it is a view point if not shared by many then certainly something they can relate to. I would like nothing more than a positive, effective RST that could drive change within Rangers for the better, however I am less than convinced that is possible under current leadership.

 

Edit: I appreciate your taking the time to tackle any criticisms and think that being more open to criticism and entering into debate with fans who maybe are lacking in a full picture can only benefit the trust.

For clarification, the Chairman e-mailed mid-afternoon to say he couldn't attend. There was talk of cancelling the meeting but one Board member was on his way from the Midlands and we still had quite a full agenda (it was the week before Manchester) so 11 people decided to go ahead with the meeting. It certainly wasn't behind anyone's back nor did it break any Trust rule that I'm aware of. We held an EGM to explain to members what had happened but I appreciate that not everyone could attend and, with hindsight, perhaps we should have issued something further.

While certain RST board members are clearly unfit to represent themselves, let alone anyone else, I'm not sure there is any widespread animosity towards individuals in that organisation. What is certainly evident is a profound and settled dissatisfaction at the lack of achievement from the RST, either to build credibility and strength through membership or to otherwise influence the club or other aspects of society in respect of Rangers.

 

I do believe there is still considerable goodwill towards the idea of a Supporters Trust and that the widespread rejection of the RST is entirely down to the behaviour and performance of those running it. Most other executives that had been shunned to this extent by its constituency would have resigned long ago and the sheer intransigence of the current RST board is progressively alienating more and more members and potential members alike.

 

There comes a time when everyone has to accept the judgement of their own track record and no amount of the peculiar defence seen elsewhere in this thread can obscure the paucity of those running the RST. That these people continue in office is little short of a disgrace. That they should come on forums such as this to deflect and deny by attacking their critics in such a petulant manner is only typical of the entire RST malaise. This unwillingness to address the shortcomings that everyone else can see but which they can only respond to with acrimony and blame. To any serious observer, the whole RST affair is little short of pathetic.

You know Mainflyer, in the history of the RST there has probably been in excess of 50 people on the RST Board, some very talented individuals, others perhaps less so but committed Rangers fans anyway. During that time people haven't exactly been queuing up to get involved or offer advice. Think of him as you want but SDM is a very clever man with professional PR consultants behind him. I think it's to our credit thate we are the first port of call for the media, despite them being told by the club not to speak to us. I don't think we have failed. We have created thousands of new shareholders, we have defended the Club and the fans in the media when nobody else would and we continue to act in the Club's and fans' best interests which will hopefully become apparent in the not too distant future.

I don't feel the need to respond to EB's post and digress the debate as you've said much of what I would have in response (and probably in a more legible way).

 

One thing I would say to EB. Seeing as he is unwilling to take any criticism of the trust; I don't understand your view that anyone who doesn't support he trust 100% regardless of the dubious agenda of some of the head honchos is to create another fan group.

 

The fan base as a whole, particularly those active online and within organisations already agree we have too many groups who are dividing the support, making it difficult to rally around behind one flag and having no direction or large support. So why are you suggesting forming another group? All that will do is weaken the fan base as a whole and further divide the support.

 

I would also add I was formally a member of the trust though not really active due to a number of reasons. When my membership lapsed I didn't renew it because I was not very comfortable with the way control was seized by individuals whose main concerns seemed to be personal advancement rather than the more honourable aims the Trust was formed upon. If that is not a fair reflection of events that is a fault of the clandestine nature of the RST and it's members and not those viewing from the outside as there is still a lot of secrecy over precisely what happened.

SA, you're making these statements (that I've put in bold) based not on facts but on information you may have gleaned from messageboards and perhaps talking to people whose views may not be entirely objective. For me, the RST was the most important thing in the whole sorry episode. I had no agenda nor did I have any particular loyalty to any individual(s). I'm not sure what you mean about 'the dubious agenda of some of the head honchos' or the fact that 'control was seized'. The Chairman resigned as he felt he no longer had the support of the Board - based on feedback from one person from a meeting that had taken place the previous evening that he had not attended. I personally think that we were all completely behind him but we wanted a bit more communication about what was happening with his discussions with the Club. There was also a suggestion that we had to examine the rules we had in place as a Board, particularly regarding meeting the Club. This suggestion was the one that led to complete meltdown but it was open to interpretation. It's interesting that five people resigned who weren't actually part of the discussion. I'm not slagging these people off in any way, as i said I am still friendly with most of them and respect them. I'm just sad that we couldn't have a clear the air meeting as I think most of the issues could have been resolved. For people to assume that what happened was a pre-meditated act to remove people from the Board is ludicrous, in my opinion of course.

Thanks for the response plgsarmy (no intent on changing username ?). This is the type of response I would like to see rather than the finger pointing from both sides. It serves no purpose for ANYONE and most certainly not the club.

 

Bad feeling I can understand - but at the expense of the greater good of the club ? The STS report was a well-written, well thought out project and offered a number of items which could have been expanded upon - a unified supporters front may have helped that. It seems that what you are saying is that because STS was put together by some of the resignees (as well as others) that those who remained on the board, due to what seem personal grievances, refused to acknowledge it. Surely you would accept that this is most definitely not in the best interests of the club ? It is these type of perceptions that the Trust are going to continue to struggle to overcome - because so long as people take things personal (you really shouldnt in these organisations) then there will always be a "them and us" mentality and the Trust will continue to regain any credibility they had.

 

I can understand the frustration that SDM and Bain "thought they knew best" but that should never prevent us as fans from continuing to convince them otherwise - the more armed we are and with good suggestions the better chance we "should" have of doing so.

 

Cheers for the response though plg

It's all pretty academic now I suppose but nothing was ever going to convince them. For clarification, there was never any real discussion on STS other than we were forwarded e-mails sent to all the supporters groups. There was never anything saying 'x is involved in this so we aren't getting involved'. I think it was more a realisation that it was futile under that regime. Just my thoughts though.

Yes I am. A life member in fact. Paid for annual members for a further 10 Gersnetters. Never attended a meeting as it is physically very difficult. Does that mean that I am a bad member and simply griping ?

 

The thing is, if the RST is such a progressive organisation then they should be taking the criticism on board and at least TRY to improve where possible. I havent seen much progression in that regard recently.

 

Some call it sniping, others will call it constructive criticism. At the end of the day those involved with the Trust need to be thick-skinned enough to know that they cant please everyone and there will be criticism but where people are having similar issues surely the Trust would be well served in trying to see if they could utilise some of the suggestions.

 

Now, how about someone from the Trust explain just why it was that the very same organisation ignored the fine STS Project ? Now, I defy anyone to tell me that particular project was not worth standing behind as it at least put forward suggestions for bettering the club. Why was it that only the Trust and FF did not acknowledge it ?

 

I thought the Trust was about bettering the club, no ? From their refusal to back STS it would appear to some that the Trust, rather than being about bettering the club is about progressing other agendas, especially when they have something tangible at hand to support (STS).

 

But is this all "griping" ? Call it what you will but IMO it is constructive criticism and so long as the Trust do not take it on board then their efforts will continue to be futile.

Craig, the main criticism we had was lack of communication. We now have an e-mail and text facility whereby we can inform members of what's going on. They can also e-mail us through our website. It's not perfect and some work still needs to be done.

Regarding the STS project, I'd be lying if I said that there wasn't still some bad feeling. I think many of us were annoyed by the statement issued as much of it was based on supposition rather than fact and it questioned the integrity of those who remained on the Board. However it's in the past now and I have personally spoken to five of the seven resignees and everything has been on a friendly basis. I think we have agreed that there were faults on both sides. I thought that most of the STS report was well written (and one of the contributors is now on our Board) and said so on another forum. However, having been part of the group that presented the Trust's 15 point plan to SDM and Martin Bain, they just aren't (weren't) interested. They think they know best. Perhaps under the new regime this will change.

Sorry mate, without the "we" I might have taken the bait but years of one-sided correspondence with the RST eventually drains the batteries. You're just the latest in a very long line of people who want to ask questions but never answer them. I did join the RST, life member. Until they offered to refund my �£100 membership so that I could no longer justify asking them for answers. Nice people those RST folks.

Fair enough if you don't want to answer the questions but I think the answer may have offered some insight into the difficulties the Trust has faced since the start. At the beginning, many saw it as an anti-SDM vehicle and a way to put pressure on him. Many joined the Trust as a result. When it became apparent that this was a small minority view at that time a decision was made to try to work with the regime and we began regular meetings. The anti-Murray brigade didn't like this and others didn't like the fact that we couldn't always divulge what was said. We then went for Board representation but the club messed us about so much and it eventually led to the resignations in 2008. Since then we have been trying to improve things like communications and I think we have done so. I think if we were eg in a Newcastle situation then it would have been easy for a Trust to unite the fans but until recently the vast majority of the fans thought the sun shone out SDM's backside, some still do. Perhaps we should have done things differently, who knows whether that would have made any difference.

As for your refund, were you offered a phone call or a meeting to discuss your questions and concerns but you declined?

I like a good fantasy as much as anyone but I didn't sign up as anyone's teacher, so you just find your own answers. It can't be that difficult since any other direction would be preferable to the non-event perpetrated by the incumbent clowns.

 

Seriously, it's the oldest trick in the book, trying to justify mediocrity by challenging critics to come up with something better. But the fact is that mediocrity is still mediocrity, whatever alternatives might be proposed. It's a fool's defence and of no value.

It wasn't meant to be a defence or justification for anything. I'm not claiming we're perfect or haven't made mistakes. Can I ask you another question then? Why did you join the Trust and what did you want it to achieve? (okay that's 2 questions:))

I don't see anyone griping about the RST. I do see a great deal of dissatisfaction with the performance of the RST and those who run it.

 

The fact is that the RST isn't the current cabal who all-but-hijacked it and then didn't know what to do with it, nor does it belong to them. We don't need another organisation, the RST will do us just fine. What we need is to extracate the RST from the loony brigade who have barricaded themselves into it.

 

There is no practical way to change the RST from within and the fact is that the RST DOES only speak for a few hundred. It's a completely unsatisfactory situation and your oblique defence of it helps no one, least of all the RST. Or are you actually claiming the current RST board are somehow worthy of your support?

Maineflyer, just imagine you have waved a magic wand and the Board (past and present) have disappeared. It's 2003 and you are charge. What actions would you take to engage with the fans, in what direction would you take the Trust and how would you do it?

Anyone with half a brain in modern society can see religions such as catholism for what they are.

 

The *** nonsense is not good for the club though. I really cringe. If we're involved in any more controversy UEFA are going to hammer us soon or later and fans chanting songs they're told not to sing does us no good.

 

At the same time though, it annoys me that its us that are targeted. Aberdeen fans are IMO the worst in Scottish football and seem to get no abuse for it.

We have never been told not to sing the Sash or Derry's Walls.

I dont particularily trust polished orators , Tony Blair anyone :)

Or SDM? :spl: Oops, looks like you edited your post after I posted.

Frankie,

I agree with a lot of that but I didn't think the Chairman's speech was a particularly confident one. He was hesitant many times, said the wrong word and had to correct himself. Martin Bain's was much slicker.

For example, we agreed

to discontinue all reimbursements to Murray Group for management services.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Yes but not sure if it will be available

Any truth in the rumour that Rangers will be rushing out new pyjamas in time for christmas?:spl:

The fact is we are where we are and nothing will or can change the past , whilst I agree with maineflyer in that until we get a full expanation on why the current RST board took the decisions they did especially with regards " the special tasks and disciplinary committee " we will forever hold the current incumbents with suspicion , well I will anyway .

 

However nothing that anyone says on here will effect any change amongst the present RST board so best let sleeping dogs lie . More pertinant is how they conduct themselves in the present and the members such as UCB and oneamoruso help restore faith to a certain degree though I still do not fully understand where MD thinks he is going or if he expects to use the RST as a means to an end , only time will tell .

Just to clarify, it was not a disciplinary committee and that word was not in the title.

Sorry PLG i have never been a member of the trust or any other organisation so i have no idea what the subscription is or the membership. What i do want is that all the flogged horses are now brought out in the open and we as Rangers supporters can march as one unit to our goal. It is in the new young managers bible. Transparency rules the world.

Pete,

I am only saying this because I have read numerous posts referring to membership going from 4000 to 1000, 2000-3000 resigning from the Trust. It's simply not true, since Year 1 we have struggled to retain members and I'll give you an explanation for that tomorrow but I'm getting tired now.

Thanks for the post mate, that certainly opens up the issue for more debate and another insight to what went on.

My thoughts on this though are that to have a mass resignation then something must have been wrong anyway. If this was a one of then everyone would have accepted the meeting was unfortunately nullified and a new date would have been made

PM me a new name and i will see that it is changed for you. Pleas don't wait another three years to post.

I think there probably were things wrong to be honest. The main problem probably being that the Chairman resigned the very next morning. The vice-chairman resigned a week later. There was never a 'clear the air' meeting suggested by anyone. Anyway, it's too late to go into this tonight, I'll be back on tomorrow to answer questions. I do not want this to drag on and would prefer to stick to the task in hand but I can't sit back and read things that are simply not true.

Fans Reunited would be great... dont hold your breath though Waltersarmy

Perhaps maineflyersworstnightmare would be better.

I dont think they are being portrayed as the bad guys. Using your own words, at the point where facts become opinions, the people who saw it as an attempt to undermine the chairman think of it as a coup, whereas yourself, presumably, and others who also post here and whose opinions get a fair hearing, saw it as an opportunity to ensure the trust kept within its rules. The reason you will find the former being more widely discussed is because they came out and said it, wheras the latter, like yourself until now, kept quiet about it. Chinese whispers only exist when people, for whatever reason, decide not to speak clearly for everyone to hear. All the whys etc are the debate we are having. Glad you made your first post, and if you want your username changed we can sort that for you

Yes we did keep quiet. Much of it was discussed at the Special General Meeting we held at the time. I think many felt it would be inappropriate to get into a public slanging match with our ex-colleagues so we kept silent, perhaps in hindsight that was wrong. I believe that the Board were all behind Malcolm but many of us were worried because the whole directorship thing was dragging out, given that we were told in January that it was going to the next RFC Board meeting for ratification and we were in May and things hadn't progressed. In addition, the then vice-chairman had sent out an e-mail in April stating that in his opinion we shouldn't even accept the directorship. Jim Templeton's subsequent resignation from the Assembly probably says a lot about this too. There was a lot of frustration around at the time, especially as we had tried to stop openly criticising the regime in public, even when many of us thought it was justified. Far from being a coup, the resignations shocked the remaining Board members.

As for my username, what about Fans Reunited.:spl:

I am happy that i have brought you to where you wanted to go. What i am unhappy about is that the RST have been split apart by the shadow's and mirrors that we have blamed David Murray with. Obviously 3000-4000 fans leaving the RST also got you to where you are happy Craig. Disappointing in my opinion even if you are right.

I think if you look at the accounts of the Trust you will find that the most taken in subscriptions in any one year is circa �£18K.

I got bored reading the thread so i'll summarise.

 

Essentially (and I say nothing no one doesn't know) an RST meeting was arranged (presumably by Mark Dingwall) in the absence of Frankie and a few others. The reason for this meeting, ultimately, was to help MD seize control of the RST whilst ousting Malcolm McNiven (I think) and a few others who didn't toe Mark's party line. This all occurred around the time that the trust were getting close to getting a fan on the board and MD wanted it to be him or someone he could influence.

 

This RST EGM meeting, that occured in spite of or against the wishes of (at least certainly in the absence of) the people MD wanted rid of on the RST board occurred. When Frankie etc found out, they were left in an untenable (sp) position and felt like they had to quit.

 

Just prior to this, the RST were the strongest they had been. Their quitting left a "strong" RST in the hands of MD etc. Fortunately, he and his cronies managed to fuck that up. And since then it's been a downward slope.

 

Apologies if I missed something out.

 

Someone on here recently stated that if the current RST board really had Rangers interests above their own they'd step down right away if it helped achieve aims such as a fan on the board. In the case of Frankie, those ex-board members and even UCB I believe that to be the case. Unfortunately I do no believe that MD has the interests of Rangers above himself and that is borne out by his actions. See the STS report as a good example.

Talk about Chinese Whispers. I've been a member of this forum since November 2006 and this is my first post. One of the main reasons is that I'm pretty embarrassed by my username but I simply can't let this go.

Firstly, the meeting to which you refer was a scheduled Board meeting with a full agenda, although the main purpose was to hear from the then Chairman on progress on negotiations with the Club on the Associate Director positions that were going to be offered to him and also the then Assembly President. An e-mail was sent out around 2.30 pm (might have been a bit earlier or a bit later) asking to cancel the meeting as the Chairman had auditors in and couldn't get away. At this point one of the Board members was on route from the Midlands specifically to attend the meeting. Board members were given the option on whether or not to attend, some did, some didn't. Five of the people who subsequently resigned didn't attend the meeting.

The directorship was only one thing discussed at the meeting. Others included a matchday experience report, the Assembly, Supporters Direct, Gersave, development of Ibrox, billboard advertising, the Dublin Loyal banner, membership, communication, Manchester, NARSA and RSCs.

I'm not on here to defend Mark Dingwall but he has never been an office bearer of the Trust nor has he ever put himself forward as a potential fans representative on the Rangers Board, he simply doesn't have the right credentials for such an office and he is fully aware of this.

Everything I have stated is fact.

The main 'bone of contention' was with one agenda item which was the formation of a Special Tasks and Purposes Committee. People interpreted this in different ways and ultimately led to the resignation of the Chairman, followed by 6 others. At this point the facts become opinions. Some thought it was an attempt to undermine the Chairman, others saw it as merely trying to make sure that the RST operated within its' rules and kept it's focus.

I have no wish to slag off anyone who resigned but I am unwilling for those who remained to constantly be portrayed as the bad guys in all this.