RST re-invented again

[maineflyer 0]

:fish:

 

Seeing as you think Setting the Standard and the Trust are each a waste of effort, what do you suggest as alternatives MF?

Spliff,

 

The problem with the Trust is that it isn't an effort at all. It only seems to operate as a private club for the sole benefit of its officers and other board members. I'm all ears if you know different but years of watching that debacle persuades me it's beyond all hope.

 

STS has considerable merit in its own right but cannot ever achieve anything so long as the club is unwilling to engage in serious discussion. If the club is prepared to change its attitude and view the support as a serious partner in the business of Rangers, then STS would be a valuable starting point.

 

What do I suggest? New ownership and a CEO who is confident enough of his own ability to enter willingly into constructive dialogue with supporters groups. IMO, no supporter initiative will ever succeed without those preconditions, regardless of how well thought out and prepared they might be. The way things stand at the moment, the supporter is very much the junior partner, without a seat at the table and dependant entirely on two things ...... being invited to speak and being listened to. That's what I think about it - what do you suggest?

[Big Spliff 0]

Spliff,

 

The problem with the Trust is that it isn't an effort at all. It only seems to operate as a private club for the sole benefit of its officers and other board members. I'm all ears if you know different but years of watching that debacle persuades me it's beyond all hope.

 

STS has considerable merit in its own right but cannot ever achieve anything so long as the club is unwilling to engage in serious discussion. If the club is prepared to change its attitude and view the support as a serious partner in the business of Rangers, then STS would be a valuable starting point.

 

What do I suggest? New ownership and a CEO who is confident enough of his own ability to enter willingly into constructive dialogue with supporters groups. IMO, no supporter initiative will ever succeed without those preconditions, regardless of how well thought out and prepared they might be. The way things stand at the moment, the supporter is very much the junior partner, without a seat at the table and dependant entirely on two things ...... being invited to speak and being listened to. That's what I think about it - what do you suggest?

 

 

Well I suppose it depends on what you are interested in.

 

If you believe in supporter ownership as opposed to the next-rich-man model - and if you have constructive & practical ideas, I would suggest you wipe the slate clean and re-engage with the Trust.

 

If you are not bothered about who owns the club but have constructive & practical ideas I would suggest you also get involved with the STS project or the Assembly.

 

It is possible for you to get involved in all 3 at the same time if you wanted to.

[Super_Ally 0]

relationship with the club and the wider Scottish society ..... and we blew it because a handful of ego-on-legs saw it principally as a means of self-promotion.

 

Sorry for not addressing this directly earlier. Was only on briefly this morning and didn't have time to read longer posts.

 

Your quarrel with the RST does seem odd. I don't doubt what you say, I just wonder why they would behave in such a manner. Are there numbers so few they had to guard that fact and why did it need to be guarded from life members? (I was not a life member. Joined as a poor student and couldn't afford the life membership). Was your only issue regarding the number of members or were there other issues that led to their rather extreme looking reaction?

[maineflyer 0]

Sorry for not addressing this directly earlier. Was only on briefly this morning and didn't have time to read longer posts.

 

Your quarrel with the RST does seem odd. I don't doubt what you say, I just wonder why they would behave in such a manner. Are there numbers so few they had to guard that fact and why did it need to be guarded from life members? (I was not a life member. Joined as a poor student and couldn't afford the life membership). Was your only issue regarding the number of members or were there other issues that led to their rather extreme looking reaction?

 

No - it was largely conducted in public on another forum and there were plenty other people astonished by the Trust behaviour. It's still somewhere over on Rangers Media if you care to search for it, although I use a diiferent username in that debate. Also, the Radio Scotland interviewer (I think it was Traynor but I can't remember for sure) asked the direct question in public - "how many members doe sthe Trust represent" - to which David Edgar replied "5000". This was heard by thousands and was plainly a lie. One RST board member recently admitted in public forum that the Trust had previously calculated its membership solely on the basis of members joining and took no account of those who did not renew. She didn't clarify whether the same person renewing their membership for a second year counted as two members but I took it that was what she meant. She also admited that the RST now had a different policy for calculating membership - which seems like a complete waste of time if they're not prepared to tell anyone what that membership is.

 

Why don't you try asking them yourself. Contact them via their website and see what response you get - I've done this periodically for years and have yet to receive a single response. That way you won't have to wonder whether I'm telling you the truth or not.

[Super_Ally 0]

Not so much that I don't believe you, just trying to understand why they responded in the manner they did.

 

Your explanation above seems reasonable and I guess it was self-preservation on their part. Admitting to having a low number of members would not look good.

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

I watched the thread MF is talking about on RM with interest, and it is as he says. He continually asked a RST board member (the treasurer I think) about membership numbers, and ended up getting his life membership refunded without the question being answered.

 

It does seem strange because I met a RST board member recently and asked about membership and got an approximate number told to me straight away without hesitation, even split between life members and renewing members, although it was hoped that the renewal numbers would increase as the season kicked in (this was around the opening day of the season) and as the AGM came round.

 

The number seemed reasonably accurate to me and in line with what I was expecting.

 

My own take on the 5000 was that that number was around the total membership cards issued at that time. Obviously there have been many that have not renewed over the years, and that needs to be taken into account.

 

Whatever the number, it still remains the largest active membership of a Rangers group around. The Assembly might have 30,000 members, but they dont pay to join and as we all know, most dont even know they are members, and many (like myself and my son) are counted twice as being members of 2 clubs.

 

I am not here to defend the RST by any means, but I am a member and have been since the day it was formed on 5 April 2003. I will be attending the next AGM on 26 September and will see what they have to say about how they see the way forward, and how they have dealt with the issues that were raised last year.

 

I was very disappointed with the internal fighting in 2008, and there are many areas of it I feel should be improved, but those changes do not come by slagging them off on a message board, but by trying to influence policy and hold the board to account on promises made.

 

No doubt it will be making a few announcements as its own AGM nears to fulfil it's 2008 AGM commitments, like the new website recently launched that was promised last year, and I have noticed better communications with the membership in recent weeks after months of nothing, and this being a major priority assured to members at both the EGM and AGM of 2008. I am sure the upcoming AGM is purely coincidental in this regard!

[Super_Ally 0]

Thanks for the informative post mate.

 

As I said to MF, their reaction to a perfectly reasonable request is bizarre to say the least.

[Bluedell 5,329]

No doubt it will be making a few announcements as its own AGM nears to fulfil it's 2008 AGM commitments, like the new website recently launched that was promised last year, and I have noticed better communications with the membership in recent weeks after months of nothing, and this being a major priority assured to members at both the EGM and AGM of 2008. I am sure the upcoming AGM is purely coincidental in this regard!

It's a shame that this improved communication doesn't include the availability to members of minutes of the 2008 AGM. That makes it a little difficult to know what commitments they should be fulfilling.

[maineflyer 0]

I watched the thread MF is talking about on RM with interest, and it is as he says. He continually asked a RST board member (the treasurer I think) about membership numbers, and ended up getting his life membership refunded without the question being answered.

 

It does seem strange because I met a RST board member recently and asked about membership and got an approximate number told to me straight away without hesitation, even split between life members and renewing members, although it was hoped that the renewal numbers would increase as the season kicked in (this was around the opening day of the season) and as the AGM came round.

 

The number seemed reasonably accurate to me and in line with what I was expecting.

 

My own take on the 5000 was that that number was around the total membership cards issued at that time. Obviously there have been many that have not renewed over the years, and that needs to be taken into account.

 

Whatever the number, it still remains the largest active membership of a Rangers group around. The Assembly might have 30,000 members, but they dont pay to join and as we all know, most dont even know they are members, and many (like myself and my son) are counted twice as being members of 2 clubs.

 

I am not here to defend the RST by any means, but I am a member and have been since the day it was formed on 5 April 2003. I will be attending the next AGM on 26 September and will see what they have to say about how they see the way forward, and how they have dealt with the issues that were raised last year.

 

I was very disappointed with the internal fighting in 2008, and there are many areas of it I feel should be improved, but those changes do not come by slagging them off on a message board, but by trying to influence policy and hold the board to account on promises made.

 

No doubt it will be making a few announcements as its own AGM nears to fulfil it's 2008 AGM commitments, like the new website recently launched that was promised last year, and I have noticed better communications with the membership in recent weeks after months of nothing, and this being a major priority assured to members at both the EGM and AGM of 2008. I am sure the upcoming AGM is purely coincidental in this regard!

What was the membership numbers you were given? I ask because I do have what I believe to be fairly good information myself and have been trying to get the RST to either confirm what I know - or show they are prepared to continue the myth.

[maineflyer 0]

Thanks for the informative post mate.

 

As I said to MF, their reaction to a perfectly reasonable request is bizarre to say the least.

 

It shows an unnecessarily defensive attitude - the reason for which needs to be shown the light of day.