What does GersNet think?

[Frankie 8,182]

I'm unsure what the fans groups can do other than ask for clarity and look to debate the matter in an open sense with the support and the club.

 

I'd start by calling for an EGM even if the AGM is just around the corner. 30mins of the usual Gattuso questions won't do in this case.

[pete 2,499]

To be honest i would like to see Rangers being run as a company again without a person who owns everything. If Murray had any feeling for the club he would pay off the debt he has built up and walk away and leave the club to be run by people who have it's best interests at heart.

We are not the only club who are going to be in trouble.

AZ-- Dirk Scheringa is bankrupt AZ will have no money next year.

RKC--Will possibly close today

Real Madrid-- 280 million in debt

Chelsea-- +\-200 million pound in debt. Yes Chesea have a rich Russian but he is also building up the club debt rather than spend his own money as did Murray.

As Enigma say's we probably will have a hard time short term but at least we will be Rangers again and not a Murray toy.

[Union City Blue 0]

http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/

 

Rangers Supporters Trust Calls for Collaboration

 

Monday, 26 October 2009 13:39

 

In common with all Rangers fans, the Rangers Supporters Trust (RST) is deeply concerned about conflicting statements from the club (and those close to the club) regarding the extent of the influence exercised at present by representatives of Lloyds Bank and the consequent implications this may have for Rangers� future.

 

While the Trust recognises that there may be understandable frustration and anger at the latest developments, it also appreciates that the Rangers support would welcome a positive response in what is undoubtedly a challenging time.

 

Accordingly, the Trust extends an invitation to all friends of Rangers to join with us as we work to establish a shareholding such that the support has a strong voice within the club. It also welcomes further approaches from large shareholders (current or potential) whom it will assist in building bridges between supporters and the club - and find productive avenues to resolve the current and under-lying problems in ways which, first and foremost, benefit Rangers.

 

Specifically, the Rangers Supporters Trust remains 100% committed to Rangers and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the club. The RST therefore extends an open and direct invitation to Rangers FC and supporters everywhere to collaborate and engage on an energetic, positive & innovative basis.

[bmck 117]

not usually one to complain about this sort of stuff, but this is a barely comprehensible statement. seven sentences in four paragraphs? this faux-business type of english, with a million redundant clauses, just drains any force from anything that's said.

 

sorry mate. i just don't think we need more obsfucation.

[Union City Blue 0]

not usually one to complain about this sort of stuff, but this is a barely comprehensible statement. seven sentences in four paragraphs? this faux-business type of english, with a million redundant clauses, just drains any force from anything that's said.

 

sorry mate. i just don't think we need more obsfucation.

 

Well clearly that wasn't the intention mate, but thanks for the feedback.

 

Which parts of it come across as unclear? Or do you just personally not like the language?

 

[Zappa 0]

The key message that this statement sends to me is that the RST is calling for fans who wish to help in some way to join the Trust. The statement gives the impression that the Trust is quite blatantly attempting to use the club's current situation to boost it's membership numbers & subsequently it's strength. I'm really not sure how I feel about this. It's possibly naive to assume that the trust won't come under some heavy fire for taking this approach since fans joining the Trust at this time is very unlikely to help the predicament that our club is in and to be frank, it's the club & it's current situation which is important, nothing else.

[bmck 117]

Man, for what little it's worth, here's my problem. I read complicated stuff all the time, and when uncomplicated things are made complicated through language, I tend not to be able to trust in the competence of what's being said. You can call it pedantry, but I think language matters. This works hard to lose readers, for my money. I'm just not sure what anyone is actually supposed to take from this. The only bit of information in this is that the RST wants to know what's happening at the club, and will help anyone who wants to invest. The rest is verbiage.

 

In common with all Rangers fans, the Rangers Supporters Trust (RST) is deeply concerned about conflicting statements from the club (and those close to the club) regarding the extent of the influence exercised at present by representatives of Lloyds Bank and the consequent implications this may have for Rangers’ future.

 

The amount of redundant words and clauses in this sentence is ridiculous. You could remove 'In common', 'the extent of', 'at present', 'by representatives', 'consequent' without losing a shred of meaning. As such the lexical density in a single sentence for such a simple concept is harrowing. If it's supposed to inspire a sense of intelligence and authority by the use of so many nominalised forms, I think it does the opposite.

 

While the Trust recognises that there may be understandable frustration and anger at the latest developments, it also appreciates that the Rangers support would welcome a positive response in what is undoubtedly a challenging time.

 

The while->also construction here seems to promise some sort of contrast that makes some point or dispels some misunderstanding. It seems to be saying that while the Rangers support are frustrated they would also welcome a positive response. Removing the subject in the opening clause obsfucates who exactly is frustrated. Then you have to wonder why anyone would infer from someone being frustrated, they wouldn't also be open to a 'positive response', if you can even work out what a 'positive response' is in this context, and who is expected to make it, and with regards to what.

 

Accordingly, the Trust extends an invitation to all friends of Rangers to join with us as we work to establish a shareholding such that the support has a strong voice within the club. It also welcomes further approaches from large shareholders (current or potential) whom it will assist in building bridges between supporters and the club - and find productive avenues to resolve the current and under-lying problems in ways which, first and foremost, benefit Rangers.

 

The 'Accordingly' seems to want to step forward from the previous paragraph as if some clear point had been made. The sentence that follows seems to want to say 'The trust invites all friends of Rangers to work with us to establish sufficient shares to give the support a strong voice within the club' but actually says whatever that is. The fear of verbs has turned everything into noun phrases ('invites' into 'an invitation', 'establish shares' turns into 'a sufficient shareholding') until the sentence is nine miles longs and so far removed from something you would hear someone actually say as to require lawyer-esque understanding to get past the words to the meaning.

 

The sentence about helping investors for Rangers' benefit is interesting. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but it sounds positive.

 

Specifically, the Rangers Supporters Trust remains 100% committed to Rangers and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the club. The RST therefore extends an open and direct invitation to Rangers FC and supporters everywhere to collaborate and engage on an energetic, positive & innovative basis.

 

Who does Rangers refer to in this context? Isn't it obvious a Rangers supporters club will be committed to Rangers? The last sentence says absolutely nothing - an invitation to collaborate and engage on nothing in particular, but on a 'basis' flowered with token adjectives.

 

What happened to the Trust's good old-fashioned, direct and to-the-point, statements?

Edited October 26, 2009 by bmck

[Union City Blue 0]

The key message that this statement sends to me is that the RST is calling for fans who wish to help in some way to join the Trust. The statement gives the impression that the Trust is quite blatantly attempting to use the club's current situation to boost it's membership numbers & subsequently it's strength. I'm really not sure how I feel about this. It's possibly naive to assume that the trust won't come under some heavy fire for taking this approach since fans joining the Trust at this time is very unlikely to help the predicament that our club is in and to be frank, it's the club & it's current situation which is important, nothing else.

 

Shroomz,

 

The Trust, naturally, wants to see Rangers fans become shareholders in the club. That's one of it's core objectives. Given that the current situation is sooooo dire, now is exactly the time for Rangers fans to get involved in shareholding. I wouldn't recommend anybody spends their last �£1 on Rangers shares ATM, but the opportunity is there. There's nothing wrong with inviting fans to get involved in share ownership at a time when the club is about to change hands to persons unknown IMO.

 

It's worth remembering also that the Trust facilitates a scheme which actually puts its members' money INTO the club. The Trust would like to do more of that, not for the benefit of the Trust, but for the benefit of the club.

 

Rasing cash to buy new shares in Rangers is what the Trust is about so I'm unclear about why you think this doesn't help the club?

[Union City Blue 0]

Man, for what little it's worth, here's my problem. I read complicated stuff all the time, and when uncomplicated things are made complicated through language, I tend not to be able to trust in the competence of what's being said. You can call it pedantry, but I think language matters. This works hard to lose readers, for my money. I'm just not sure what anyone is actually supposed to take from this. The only bit of information in this is that the RST wants to know what's happening at the club, and will help anyone who wants to invest. The rest is verbiage.

 

 

 

The amount of redundant words and clauses in this sentence is ridiculous. You could remove 'In common', 'the extent of', 'at present', 'by representatives', 'consequent' without losing a shred of meaning. As such the lexical density in a single sentence for such a simple concept is harrowing. If it's supposed to inspire a sense of intelligence and authority by the use of so many nominalised forms, I think it does the opposite.

 

 

 

The while->also construction here seems to promise some sort of contrast that makes some point or dispels some misunderstanding. It seems to be saying that while the Rangers support are frustrated they would also welcome a positive response. Removing the subject in the opening clause obsfucates who exactly is frustrated. Then you have to wonder why anyone would infer from someone being frustrated, they wouldn't also be open to a 'positive response', if you can even work out what a 'positive response' is in this context, and who is expected to make it, and with regards to what.

 

 

 

The 'Accordingly' seems to want to step forward from the previous paragraph as if some clear point had been made. The sentence that follows seems to want to say 'The trust invites all friends of Rangers to work with us to establish sufficient shares to give the support a strong voice within the club' but actually says whatever that is. The fear of verbs has turned everything into noun phrases ('invites' into 'an invitation', 'establish shares' turns into 'a sufficient shareholding') until the sentence is nine miles longs and so far removed from something you would hear someone actually say as to require lawyer-esque understanding to get past the words to the meaning.

 

The sentence about helping investors for Rangers' benefit is interesting. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but it sounds positive.

 

 

 

Who does Rangers refer to in this context? Isn't it obvious a Rangers supporters club will be committed to Rangers? The last sentence says absolutely nothing - an invitation to collaborate and engage on nothing in particular, but on a 'basis' flowered with token adjectives.

 

What happened to the Trust's good old-fashioned, direct and to-the-point, statements?

 

Mate, I read every word of that (twice) and I appreciate your feedback. I will try to make sure it's taken on board next time but I fear we shall never quite meet in the middle! Thanks again.

[Frankie 8,182]

I think the statement is somewhat more convoluted than it needed to be but you'll never get broad agreement on what should and should be included in such stuff.

 

I'm sure most bears want the RST to form part of any dialogue between supporters and other parties but I'm equally sure they'd want to Trust to be clear in what it wants to achieve from this. I don't think they have made it clear what they want unfortunately...

 

1. Are they being critical of the club or not?

 

2. Where is the call for transparency?

 

3. How do they plan to achieve this collaboration? Are they being pro-active on that front?

 

4. What kind of strategy do they see arising from such collaborations?

 

I'm genuinely not trying to be negative about supporters trying to be positive but I'm at a loss in how to interpret the statement as anything other than confusing....