Supporters Trusts don't have to fail.

[Union City Blue 0]

You may be right but when I mentioned to the NUST committee member I was a Rangers supporter and was interested in any differences in strategy between the two organisation, it didn't sound to me like there was much awareness of the RST at all. It didn't surprise me.

 

Sounds like a case of 'right desert, wrong tent'.

 

It happens.

[craig 5,195]

It's just background, Craig.... it helps us build a picture and become more informed. We've spoken to a lot of people recently, some of them directly helpful, some indirectly, some not. We met with the Man U Trust and discussed how they tried and failed, for example. HSV and Espanyol you already know about.

 

Maybe we should tell our members about all the things we do, it's a fair comment.

 

Anyway.....we talked to NUST, we learned some stuff, we liked some of their stuff, we don't agree with some of their stuff and they have come in for some heavy criticism over their pension fund strategy.

 

Look at this for the positive angle on NUST...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/nov/11/newcastleunited-mike-ashley?showAllComments=true

 

On reflection, maybe we should have said we talked to NUST. Possibly

 

If I came across wrong UCB my apologies.

 

When I mentioned communications I wasnt specifically talking about the discussions with NUST but using it as an example

 

I dont believe that the RST, or any other organisation, should be laundry listing everything they have done or everyone they have spoken to - if they did they would have no time to actually get done the things that need done.

 

Periodically though it might be worthwhile notifying the membership of some of the major things achieved (if any) and what, roughly, the RST are working on and strategies. This could even be done as a type of newsletter and could be distributed amongst non-members too, it could provide a means to enhancing communication and getting the message out to the wider support.

[Union City Blue 0]

If I came across wrong UCB my apologies.

 

When I mentioned communications I wasnt specifically talking about the discussions with NUST but using it as an example

 

I dont believe that the RST, or any other organisation, should be laundry listing everything they have done or everyone they have spoken to - if they did they would have no time to actually get done the things that need done.

 

Periodically though it might be worthwhile notifying the membership of some of the major things achieved (if any) and what, roughly, the RST are working on and strategies. This could even be done as a type of newsletter and could be distributed amongst non-members too, it could provide a means to enhancing communication and getting the message out to the wider support.

 

NP mate, definitely no apology required but thank you.

 

Communication could be much better - we know that. It's top of the list.

[craig 5,195]

Dont forget the big stuff though

 

Dont sweat the small stuff - but find a happy medium though

[Union City Blue 0]

Dont forget the big stuff though

 

Dont sweat the small stuff - but find a happy medium though

 

Superb idea! Cover all bases!

[Frankie 8,150]

Come off it Frankie, are you honestly trying to say it's been a bed of roses at Rangers since the RST was formed? Or that the RST membership hasn't been in sharp decline during Strapon's three titles in a row? Because as I remember things, the last few years may have had a few highlights but have hardly been a trail of successes.

 

There's no masking the basic truth and I'd have thought you of all people would see some merit in exposing it. The RST is a failure and it's a failure because those running it haven't had the gumption to make a half-decent go of it. What you describe as apathy born of fat success could easily be interpreted as disgust at the antics of lunatics. Don't you ever wonder where the RST could have been today if it hadn't been run by the sort of moron who offered me a refund of my life membership rather than discuss membership numbers?

 

The recent nonsense about somehow swallowing yesterday's incompetence for the good of a better future is an outright fallacy. If we base the future on the same pointless foundations as we've witnessed in the past, please tell me on what basis we're to expect the outcome to be any different. The biggest danger we face right now as supporters is blindly committing ourselves to another ill-considered plan, cooked up by the same band of chancers, and in the process denying ourselves the any real opportunities to build something more worthwhile.

 

Just because they might be the only show in town, doesn't mean it's going to be worth watching.

 

Well, I'd argue that the dwindling membership numbers started around the time I resigned which is when we also started to be successful (relatively speaking) on the pitch once more.

 

Of course stuff could have been done better and I'm as responsible for the mistakes as anyone else who've been involved with the organisation. Is it a failure? Possibly to a degree but I'm unsure what kind of stuff could have been achieved with a fanbase that wasn't/isn't really interested. However, lots of issues could certainly have been dealt with more appropriately so your criticism is merited obviously. Anyone who dismisses that (and I don't think I did) would be silly to do so.

 

I'm also not for a moment suggesting people should back the organisation now just because of a lack of alternatives. That's a personal choice and, like any other initiative, the pros and cons would need to be weighed up beforehand. At this stage, IMHO, there are still more cons than pros for the RST but that may change.

 

I also don't think they are the only show in town - people can suggest that all they like - but there are/will be alternatives to become involved in if one so chooses. We all have our part to play to make sure what is available (Trust led or not) is conductive to a better future for our club. Anything else is just cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[spanner 0]

Scrap the lot and start again with one body to represent the interests of the people who keep the club afloat, the fans.

[Frankie 8,150]

 

Communication could be much better - we know that. It's top of the list.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that is true. That has been said for so long now, if I were a Trust member I simply wouldn't believe it - even if I appreciate you're not directly responsible for this, given your short time on the board.

 

When I was on the board we had in place a simple (though imperfect) system where the site software could be used to send emails to those whose addresses were kept up to date. Similarly, while not every website/forum was given Trust press releases (probably a mistake in hindsight), all Trust news was posted on NewsNow so they could grab it from there. We also realised that the quarterly Blue Spirit snail mail newsletter had fallen by the wayside so that was being reintroduced (think 2 or 3 had been sent in the 12 months immediately before my resignation). Furthermore, shortly before I resigned, we'd put together a member survey where every member (current or past) was mailed a questionnaire along with TBS to gauge opinion on a more regular basis. There were also open days (not all that well attended to be fair) and regular presentations/communications with RSCs. Flyer drops at Ibrox about issues also happened occasionally.

 

Since I resigned, there appears to be no improvement upon this despite constant promises there would be. SD's InTouch system appears to have been implemented but used sparingly. This will have to be paid for after a year's initial trial IIRC so value for money must be questioned when that happens. Only occasionally do we see Trust news posted anywhere other than FF. The NewsNow system (so simple yet so effective) has been bizarrely abandoned. The Blue Spirit seems to be an annual event only used to accompany renewals. Past members appear to be given no incentive to join back up. The Trust members are not surveyed for anything as far as I can see either. I can't remember reading about a Trust Open Day for over 2 years and the presentations to RSCs also seem to have stopped.

 

And that's just the problems with the outgoing communication (and again I take responsibility for these being imperfect during my involvement).

 

In terms of incoming stuff, try sending an email to the Trust about interesting initiatives to get their opinion then you won't get the courtesy of a reply. Try sending an email as a member about your money held in GerSave and you won't get the courtesy of a reply. Try asking about membership numbers as a life member and you get your money refunded instead of an answer about something that really isn't anything to be embarrassed about. Try taking part in debates on forums about the organisation and the simplest of questions are often ignored while public insults are common from the most senior of Trust board members on forums they refuse point blank to leave the comfort of.

 

Now, I know there are several problems associated with ensuring the above is done effectively. Time, costs, relative success merits, and volunteer lack of expertise are all relevant to why such systems can fail. Mischief-makers can also mean patience online can soon be exhausted and things said which may not be meant. However, these issues don't account for all of the problems evident above.

 

Therefore, while this post may appear harsh, it is also fair and, in an environment where the Trust are proclaiming unity and leadership, these criticisms must be acted upon quickly and effectively for people to take you seriously. Despite the statements about unity at the GersPride conference I still see no evidence of this whatsoever.

 

Are the Trust going to lead and, if so, when and how will they do it? Do they intend finally opening their own forum (separate ones for members and non-members if necessary)? Do they intend contacting other websites/forums for their input/feedback/support on their ongoing work? Conversely, will they support initiatives that don't come directly from FF? How do they intend reaching supporters offline - radio and media comments are obviously not enough?

 

I'd appreciate your comments on all the above but especially the last couple of paragraphs if possible...