A scenario - RST and RSA

[maineflyer 0]

As soon as you have mor ethan one representative organisation, you also have the potential for divergence of aims and method, as well as for the rivalry that inevitably comes with individual aspiration. That's why none of our current organisations have made any tangible difference .... or ever will. Each may have some merit if you look closely enough at the detail but the fact remains that they have all been around for a considerable time and none has even been able to decide whether they are acting for the fans or for the directors of the club.

 

The issue of RSA v RST is that the RST is already a self-funding, voluntary-membership organisation. The RSA is not. Since neither are currently effective, I can see no reason to re-invent the RSA when a properly run RST could provide everything that's required.

 

The enduring condemnation of all Rangers supporters organisations is that they continue to co-exist together rather than coalesce. We all know they are actually in competition and until that stops, we ain't going anywhere.... and it won't stop until we have leadership that puts the mission before their own personal interests.... which we don't.

[chilledbear 16]

Think what our enemies would like, and do the opposite. Those who would not like to see Rangers Football Club prosper, must enjoy the division and in-fighting they see.

 

Anything that brings a stop to this must be the goal, no matter who loses out.

[Super_Ally 0]

Whilst Tannoch puts forward some good arguements I can't help but feel that MF's post is ultimately correct.

 

1 representative body, free from competition with any other such bodies and representing the fans alone (i.e. not submitting to the will of DM) is what is required.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Sorry been awol with work and uni for the last few days so sorry for the late reply.

 

Yes, BD. Simply the RSA by the nature of the organisation and the supporters groups within it have the means to access a larger supporters group. Essentially, if they become self-funding (through some mass scale marketing e.g ST's) then in essence they'll eventually become independent which would hopefully be reflected in their policies and advocacy for supporters and not just a mouthpiece of the club.

 

As for the ST renewals, i didn't realise that legal issue. However if the RSA adopted the same practice as the RST whereby a share was offered with membership does this still count. e.g. $10 quid goes to RSA and then RSA send you out your share certificate and other membership perks.

 

It's true the RSA don't directly communicate with their members but i could say the same for the RST :fish:

 

The RSA under its current set-up doesn't actually have any direct members either. It has groups that are members, eg the World Wide Alliance, The RST etc.

 

The RSA is basically an organisation to represent supporters clubs, with a few bolt-ons (RST, Blind, Corporate) so it has different objectives and aims from the RST

 

The RST "has a simple aim - to encourage and facilitate supporters of Rangers to buy and hold shares in the club in order to influence future decisions". However they don't appear to have done anything to promote this simple aim in the last 12 months. One could almost get the impression that Gersave is something that they could do without and gets in the way with the other stuff that the board want to get involved with.

 

There could be a combined organisation that would deal with all of that, and be self-funding. If the RSA got the right people involved it could raise the �£20K or so it appears to need each year....although I'm sure that their budget could be a lot lower if it had to be. Perhaps the recent moves that been referred to is the first step towards that?

 

I don't know that all of the RSA members would be willing to pay to be a member, particuarly as you may find that more than 50% of "members" don't actually realise that they are members.

 

Getting back to the original point on Gersave, I don't believe that there is the appetite in the support to invest a lot of money at this point. The club isn't in such a bad state that the support have to invest, and they are not going to put more money in on top of what they currently do without some greater vision from the club board as to where it's going. What's the incentive to put money in to see it spunked away on foreign mercenary who may not even be at the club in 2 years time?

 

The club need show that they have a medium term aim and show how the fans' cash will be used in a postive way before they will invest.

 

I don't buy Rising Stars tickets for a similar reason. I don't believe for a minute that �£1 I spend will mean �£1 more spent on Rangers Youth. Rangers Youth Development is under-funded and all that me buying tickets means is that the deficit become a little lower. The spending isn't going to increase because of it.

 

There are problems with the supporters groups but until the Rangers board itself shows vision, the fans will not be reaching into their pockets on anty major scale.

[Tannochsidebear 2,312]

The problem with having just one body to "represent" the rangers fans is that there are so many of us, with so many different areas of being a fan that need continual work to get things done that I fear no one body alone could do that.

 

Could one body really do all the work that the Association does for RSC's in dealing with other clubs to get tickets, dealing with Ibrox to get tickets, and argue the case for more tickets being made available to the RSC's. and at the same time argue on behalf of the Blind Party, the Corporates, NARSA and ORSA, and do the things the trust has done like the media work and charity fundraisers.

 

And all from a voluntary organisation with a few quid to cover expenses!! I dont think so.

 

Up until quite recently I have argued for a single body to do the job, but when you start to work with these organisations and see what they actually all do individually, there is an awful lot going on behind their scenes that takes up an awful lot of individual bears time and efforts, and for most fans out there the perception is that all of them do nothing for them!!

[maineflyer 0]

Think what our enemies would like, and do the opposite. Those who would not like to see Rangers Football Club prosper, must enjoy the division and in-fighting they see.

 

Anything that brings a stop to this must be the goal, no matter who loses out.

 

Well said Sir, it couldn't be better expressed.

[maineflyer 0]

The problem with having just one body to "represent" the rangers fans is that there are so many of us, with so many different areas of being a fan that need continual work to get things done that I fear no one body alone could do that.

 

Could one body really do all the work that the Association does for RSC's in dealing with other clubs to get tickets, dealing with Ibrox to get tickets, and argue the case for more tickets being made available to the RSC's. and at the same time argue on behalf of the Blind Party, the Corporates, NARSA and ORSA, and do the things the trust has done like the media work and charity fundraisers.

 

And all from a voluntary organisation with a few quid to cover expenses!! I dont think so.

 

Up until quite recently I have argued for a single body to do the job, but when you start to work with these organisations and see what they actually all do individually, there is an awful lot going on behind their scenes that takes up an awful lot of individual bears time and efforts, and for most fans out there the perception is that all of them do nothing for them!!

Sorry Tannochsidebear but, with the greatest respect, that just doesn't stand up. It's like saying Heinz can't make soup as well as beans.

 

The world is full of diversified organisations, each conducting all sorts of activities successfully, but adhering to a common vision and set of core objectives. In fact it's exactly why they are so successful, how they manage to cover lot's of ground without duplication of purpose and continual changes of strategy and direction.

 

The fears you express are unfounded. A single organisation could only deliver gains rather than losses. Surely the current situation must persuade you of that. In fact, I'm staggered you could see it any other way.

[Tannochsidebear 2,312]

You are missing the point MF, that the organisations you put up are professional businesses, not voluntary organisations.

 

Most voluntary organisations have a single purpose. They are unified in a single ambition.

 

The Rangers family is a broad church, with many opposing views within, and to try to unify them all under one umbrella organisation is almost impossible.

 

Take just one issue, away tickets for SPL games. If there is only one organisation, fighting for the interests of ST holders, RSC's, The Blind Party, Corporates, and not enough tickets for all to get what they would describe as a "fair share", how do you tackle the subject and keep them all onside?

 

Currently, we have the association fighting for some RSC's, the Assembly having to fight for the Corporates and all RSC's worldwide, and the trust probably would back ST holders as they have only individual members and not RSC's as members.

 

And that is just one of dozens of issues.

 

Dont get me wrong, I would love there to be one strong unified body to represent us properly, but the problem is that at the moment, and with the greatest respect to those working really hard in all the organisations, none of the bodies are in any position to unify the fans, and all of them are struggling to get a small number of fans to support them.

 

They all have to really up their game to win the fans over, and they will never win all the fans over, as the decisions they take and the policies they make that will please some bears will alienate others, probably in equal numbers.

 

So give me your answer to the dilemma MF, i'm all ears!!

[Big Spliff 0]

My personal opinion is that things are more complicated that they might be - but also that it's understandable in a way.

 

For example, my position is that it is quite astounding that Rangers fans sing "f*ck the pope and the IRA" during Simply The Best - because they must know that it will eventually lead to bother.

 

But a lot of people do not see it like that; they think "f*ck you" to authority, or feel victimised, or feel singled-out, or don't care, or believe that no harm will come, or are too pished, or don't know, or disagee, or have a plan, or .... etc ...etc ...etc.

 

Rangers fans do not agree on ANYTHING. It makes us strong, but it makes us weak at the same time. But it is who we are, so best get used to it.

 

That said, I do believe there are opportunities to get stronger but we have to see them and take them.

[maineflyer 0]

My personal opinion is that things are more complicated that they might be - but also that it's understandable in a way.

 

For example, my position is that it is quite astounding that Rangers fans sing "f*ck the pope and the IRA" during Simply The Best - because they must know that it will eventually lead to bother.

 

But a lot of people do not see it like that; they think "f*ck you" to authority, or feel victimised, or feel singled-out, or don't care, or believe that no harm will come, or are too pished, or don't know, or disagee, or have a plan, or .... etc ...etc ...etc.

 

Rangers fans do not agree on ANYTHING. It makes us strong, but it makes us weak at the same time. But it is who we are, so best get used to it.

 

That said, I do believe there are opportunities to get stronger but we have to see them and take them.

It looks like you're having a great deal of difficulty making your mind up. It makes us weak but it makes us strong. Better get used to it but there are opportunities and we have to take them. Which is it - surely indecision isn't the way forward? I read your post but haven't a clue what your point is.