Gerspride conference, Sat 14 nov

[maineflyer 0]

Boss,

Your position is 100% clear and it's obvious that, for your own reasons, you will put obstacles in the way of anything the RST is trying to do here. That is understood.

 

It looked to me that Boss was actually giving you a long list of factual reasons why no one in their right mind would offer support to the people running the RST. He's clearly not doing this for his own reasons but for the good of the club and the wider support. The only ones placing obstacles here are those who have made a farce of the RST that many of us have supported since it started. Since you first appeared to promote the RST, you've made it abundantly clear that you actually understand very little about the issues surrounding the failure of the RST. You need a serious reality check and you need to stop misleading people, even if it's unintentional.

 

The fact that, even this weekend, these people are still openly lying about RST membership numbers should tell any reader everything they need to know about the honesy and intent of these hijackers.

[maineflyer 0]

UCB,

You make the same posts about the RST here and on Rangers Media, possibly elsewhere for all I know. But you don't post the same stuff of Vanguardbears - is there a reason for missing out that particular website?

[pete 2,499]

There are people living in fantasy land here. Withering calls to arms in the name of unity, as if unity was something that will automatically right every wrong at Ibrox, if only we would link arms and fall in behind these dreamers.

 

We don't even have a plan but already we're talking about voting for a board of directors. We've no means of raising any money but we're already owners and running the club.

 

Some people need to slow down and come up with tangible details before they start coveting support. They also need a severe reality check when it comes to asking fans to follow the lead of individuals who have shown themselves to be serial incompetents and self-promoters.

 

As usual they're trying to generate interest and accolade without revealing any concrete plans for consideration. This "believe in me" crap is an insult and it will cut no mustard with the people who are selling the club or contemplating buying it. If this is the best the Trust can come up with then they will continue to be held in the same contempt as always by the people they will have to deal with, and they will deserve it.

 

I don't have a plan either but I'm asking no one to believe I do. As and when the RST or anyone else has a plan then that will be the time to step forward and ask for the attention of supporters. Until then it would be a good idea to change leadership and keep quiet.

 

I mentioned a board of directors MF because people are wanting to nip this in the butt before anything is discussed because of a hatred of one or two people. My meaning was that we need people to take this forward. If they can take it forward it should not mean they are the big wigs in the future that should be voted on by the members.

 

Bye the way Picking out small pieces of a post and turning it into suit your argument is a thing you are good at.

Edited November 15, 2009 by pete

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

No, it's not too much to ask at all & if it's as you say that it's a 'united body', then the fans need to be shown that it actually IS a united body. I don't have the answer to how that can be achieved, but what I do know is that telling the fans that the RST is the 'vehicle' to a new Rangers FC is not the same as telling them that a united body is leading the way in a fan ownership scheme.

 

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here based on UCB's 'RST is the vehicle for change' comment, but if so then words should be chosen carefully if there's now a 'united body' working on this because it should surely be the new body which is the vehicle & not the RST themselves. Or am I overly confusing this?

 

I dont know to be fair, but the conference definately spoke of unity several times and perhaps I have taken too much into those statements.

 

I would think you had better ask these of UCB for clarification.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

I want to address this point as well mate. I wasn't suggesting that any Tom, Dick or Harry starts up a new supporters group. What I was suggesting is that the 'united body' of the existing fans groups call themselves something new based on their unity in the plan of a fan ownership scheme. It wouldn't be too different in principle to a group of companies coming under a united title apart from the financial aspects. Initially the new 'body' or 'group' would probably work just as it is just now, with representatives from each of the existing groups gathering together, but with the eventual aim of those positions (call it a board) being elected by the 50,000+ members of the new body. Btw, it should seriously be considered that to gather sufficient membership numbers & attempt to get them involved in the whole process, that membership should initially be free of charge. That doesn't help the club financially in the short term, but there has to be a way to get as many people involved as possible & IMO that is the way to do it.

 

I see what you mean now mate, and that has some merit. I dont see it happening though!!

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

There are people living in fantasy land here. Withering calls to arms in the name of unity, as if unity was something that will automatically right every wrong at Ibrox, if only we would link arms and fall in behind these dreamers.

 

We don't even have a plan but already we're talking about voting for a board of directors. We've no means of raising any money but we're already owners and running the club.

 

Some people need to slow down and come up with tangible details before they start coveting support. They also need a severe reality check when it comes to asking fans to follow the lead of individuals who have shown themselves to be serial incompetents and self-promoters.

 

As usual they're trying to generate interest and accolade without revealing any concrete plans for consideration. This "believe in me" crap is an insult and it will cut no mustard with the people who are selling the club or contemplating buying it. If this is the best the Trust can come up with then they will continue to be held in the same contempt as always by the people they will have to deal with, and they will deserve it.

 

I don't have a plan either but I'm asking no one to believe I do. As and when the RST or anyone else has a plan then that will be the time to step forward and ask for the attention of supporters. Until then it would be a good idea to change leadership and keep quiet.

 

I agree with that and I, like everyone else, is keen to hear what the plan is going to eventually look like. This is all about getting the debate going, that is all. Well it is from me anyway. I am taking the risk that if, when the scheme is revealed, I dont agree with it, then I look a bit silly, but I can handle that.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

Tannochside, you asked for questions. I've jotted down some that spring to mind, although the list is far from exhaustive. Give me your reply to each one and maybe we can talk.

 

Unity

 

How can the bodies be genuinely united when several Assembly board members are furious with Andy Kerr for issuing a joint statement behind their backs and without their approval?

 

You state that the organisations: "have the olive branch out amidst promises of new beginnings" yet RM, GN, VB, No.1 etc. were neither contacted nor invited to GersPride. Does this worry you that only one website is involved?

 

Are you not concerned that GN/Frankie's STS report was recently acknowledged and supported by all main websites except one?

 

Why do you think the RST does not give press releases to forums, except one?

 

Are you aware of the close family ties that exist between senior members of the Assembly and the RST?

 

Does this call into question their independence?

 

You state that the RST, Assembly and Association are the only organisations to exist both on and off line. Does the Association have any real web presence?

 

Are you aware of the numerous projects the good people of RM are undertaking this year?

 

Do you accept that this represents far more projects than the RST has ever undertaken in a single year?

 

Do you not accept that RM has, therefore, a very real offline presence?

 

Are you aware that the Association (and indeed the RST) has a fraction of the membership that RM has?

 

GerSave

 

You state: "The gersave scheme you will have heard of is already there, and regulated by the authorities, so would be a feasable (sic.) vehicle for collecting funds". Which authorities regulate GerSave?

 

Is it not the case that GerSave was specifically created to be outside the scope of FSA regulation?

 

Do you agree that GerSave is a sharesave scheme which is constituted to purchase shares in Rangers?

 

You make it clear that: "nobody has stepped forward with a plan. Nobody." Does that include the organisations?

 

And why are you so adamant that we should support a plan that doesn't yet exist?

 

Do you agree that a membership scheme, as long proposed by the RST, would require an entirely different constitution, a different legal structure and be in a different regulatory regime?

 

How many RST board directors have, to date, not participated in GerSave but now seem to think it is the solution to "47 days or else"?

 

Why do you state that GerSave "would be a feasable (sic.) vehicle for collecting funds" when the reality is that you have no idea whether it would be?

 

Do you therefore disagree with poster UCB (an RST board member) who stated: "Gersave money will be used to buy shares in the club. That's what it's for and that's why people pay into it."

 

You state: "To do a proper business plan for a fans owned model of Rangers, you need to know your starting position, what funds you have got, what funds you need, and who is with you". Yet you refuse to acknowledge that market research is required before moving forward. Is this not somewhat contradictory?

 

You comment that: "the share price for the existing funds generated by Gersave has still to be determined and should be in line with current market value" and "I cant tell you what they ended up getting the shares at". Should you not be aware that the shares were bought for 59.5p?

 

Should you not also be aware that there is no agreement with the club for any price other than 59.5p even although the current mid market price is 52.5p?

 

Are you aware that the RST approached the club last month and offered to buy �£50k worth of shares?

 

And that the club turned them down, not least because it was a closed period in respect of the accounts and an absurd time to ask the question?

 

Does it concern you that UCB states GerSave is a vehicle for all fans to invest in the club, yet it is a requirement of the rules of GerSave that only RST members can invest?

 

RST

 

Are you aware of the lies that have been told about the RST membership numbers and that continue to be told?

 

Why did the RST spokesperson state yesterday that he did not know how many members the RST had but could guess at 2,000, when it is a requirement of the RST constitution to keep a membership register that tells at any point in time how many members they have?

 

What are your thoughts on RST members being refused information on membership numbers when requested?

 

Does it worry you that UCB stated: "the RST AGM reported the membership in the 1600-1700 range" when that did not agree with the facts?

 

Do you think it is ethical to refund members subscriptions, something which is not provided for in its constitution, rather than release such numbers?

 

Opportunism

 

Firstly you frighten us with: "if we do not have a plan and funds in place with the next 47 days, the alternative is unthinkable". Then you tell us: "I am heartened by his very clear wording that we do not HAVE to sell to meet our banking obligations, and that the bank have agreed our funding projections to the end of the season" and that "from our own accounts recently published we can see that the bank has now accepted our business plan and our funding requirements". Which is it?

 

The RST has spent 5 years ridiculing the Assembly, its constitution and its very existence. Now the RST has made a u-turn and wants to work with the Assembly. Worse, it is using its new found best friend as a positive example of why the RST is now so good. Is this: s) opportunism; or b) exploitation?

 

New purchaser

 

A very senior ex RST board member has stated that DK is out the picture. You posted: "and for the bank to drop their stubborn refusal to accept less than �£1 per �£1 of debt, and do the deal that is still out there to be done". Which is it?

 

Is it true that the RST opened up the GersPride conference to non-members because so few people had paid their �£5 to attend?

 

And why, even once opened up, did only 100 people pay to attend at a time when you tell us we have only 47 days to act?

 

Why have the RST stated that "Bain is not involved in the day-to-day running of the club" when that is not, and never was, true? Scaremongering?

 

Do you accept that, although Muir has hawked players to other clubs, the final decision on whether a player is sold will rest with the directors in performance with their legal obligations under the Companies Act 2006?

 

And finally

 

Are you aware that cynicism is not spelled "cynacism"?

 

Answered elsewhere, need to get some sleep and really busy tomorrow at work, so i'm not going to repeat it here, other than to say I didnt actually ask you for questions, I asked you for your opinions and thoughts on some questions I posed.

 

I'm sure when I get the chance to check back on, I can read your answers.

[spanner 0]

First post so bear with me, I was told by a mate who was at the meeting that there was a small turnout of about 150-170, is this a barometer for the future and the apathy it appears that exists about our present situation.

[maineflyer 0]

I mentioned a board of directors MF because people are wanting to nip this in the butt before anything is discussed because of a hatred of one or two people. My meaning was that we need people to take this forward. If they can take it forward it should not mean they are the big wigs in the future that should be voted on by the members.

 

Reading back through the posts I can see why you might have thought I was targeting something you wrote - but I didn't intent to direct comment at anyone in particular. I actually agree with everything you say about needing to move things forward. However, I don't believe it can make progress unless certain individuals step aside - it isn't hatred, it's simply that they stand in the way of achieving anything..... not because of who they are but because of what they have consistently shown themselves to be.

 

Bye the way Picking out small pieces of a post and turning it into suit your argument is a thing you are good at.

I'm not sure what to say. I pick out what I want to comment upon, if that's what you mean. Like everyone else, I've an opinion on this matter and I'm trying to get it across. There are people around who are involved in a concerted and orchestrated attempt to sanitise an RST leadership that has singularly failed to address a multitude of issues for years. Now we are being asked just to sweep all that under the carpet and accept that now these same people will somehow lead us to the promised land. It isn't going to happen in my opinion and unless there are changes, I predict we will be no further forward a year from now. There is a great deal of talk about inclusion and unity but certain groups are still being excluded - if petty hatreds are being displated, I'd suggest it still comes from the RST itself.

 

I'm not arguing against the basic proposition, I simply do not believe those currently trying to occupy centre ground are capable of delivering it.

[spanner 0]

The hypocrisy of some sites is breathtaking, my brother who posted as boydscores has been banned by Rangersmedia, apparently he understands the Rangers accounts only to well, he should for reasons that will become obvious at a date in the future. If you don't agree with the party line it appears that over at Rangersmedia, appears the little general plays the timm card and you are gone, how about that frankie.