RST - we can't go on like this

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

I just re-read your post in post 9. My apologies as you are quite right in that it would be mission accomplished from a fans perspective. I took your post to mean that the RST were pivotal in that role.

 

I still take exception to you stating that the RST aren't solely responsible for it - I dont believe they actually play any part in achieving the aim other than administrating it.

 

I am not hell bent on slating the RST at all, you completely misunderstand me there. I am a life member and support the RST's aims, or at least the aims they had prior to the implosion 18 months ago. I felt so strongly about the RST's aims that I personally paid for 10 members of Gersnet to become members of the RST. Not exactly the actions of someone "hell-bent on slating the RST" would you not agree ?

 

I personally don't have time for personal agenda and ego being the driving force behind any organisation that should be looking at the betterment of the club as its SOLE purpose.

 

And to put that in perspective.... would those who are perceived to be driven by personal agenda resign from the RST if it meant that the RST would garner widespread support from the fans ? I suspect the answer would be in the negative.

 

Well you'll have to accept my apologies on that one. Like I said to Frankie the other day, I'm not party to nor do I wish to know about what happened 18 months ago I can only comment on what I see and throw my weight behind something I believe in. I see is an organisation trying to make a difference and I see others attempting to detract from this with contentious articles and anonymous sniping.

 

Again apologies on the slating the RST comment, as I say I have no knowledge of who did what or even who is who with regards to resignations from the board.

 

Will be logging off for now.

 

Cheers

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Yes, I have the evidence.

 

No I didn't say most - I said more - read it. Like I said, stop the dishonesty, you don't have to make up everything.

 

You said more agrees with you than agrees with the RST. If its a direct comparison then that is 'most'

 

You're getting rather agressive in your posting style and appear to be taking umbrage at the fact I don't know the RST's member count. I am only a member of the RST, I have not met another member of the RST and have only had contact with a select few.

 

Signing off for now as I mentioned above.

[calscot 0]

I think people are worried about the cost of gaining fan ownership through the vehicle of the RST.

 

Many want fan ownership, but that does not mean that they want anything to do with the RST.

 

You may want Labour out but that doesn't mean you have to want anything to do with the Monday Club.

[pete 2,499]

I think people are worried about the cost of gaining fan ownership through the vehicle of the RST.

 

Many want fan ownership, but that does not mean that they want anything to do with the RST.

 

You may want Labour out but that doesn't mean you have to want anything to do with the Monday Club.

 

Good point Cal. I would imagine that in fan control that all organisations would then fall under a new one club umbrella. I have no problem with who is the vehicle that gets fan control but i do believe that no matter who gets us there has no right to a guaranteed place on any new board. An election for board members should made as soon as possible after everything is up and running. Unfortunately i feel that many fans including myself will be falling by the wayside if the acquired amount is 1000 pounds per year. I simply can't afford it! That would again bring up the discussion of two types of membership as i feel it would be stupid to bar people who want to pay a fee more in the region of 100 pounds a year. I would be happy to accept a donors vote as i would not expect the same voting rights as someone who has paid 1000 pounds. There goes the one man one vote again.

[Union City Blue 0]

Good point Cal. I would imagine that in fan control that all organisations would then fall under a new one club umbrella. I have no problem with who is the vehicle that gets fan control but i do believe that no matter who gets us there has no right to a guaranteed place on any new board. An election for board members should made as soon as possible after everything is up and running. Unfortunately i feel that many fans including myself will be falling by the wayside if the acquired amount is 1000 pounds per year. I simply can't afford it! That would again bring up the discussion of two types of membership as i feel it would be stupid to bar people who want to pay a fee more in the region of 100 pounds a year. I would be happy to accept a donors vote as i would not expect the same voting rights as someone who has paid 1000 pounds. There goes the one man one vote again.

 

I can assure you that there will be no "guaranteed places" for people in supporters groups on the board of Rangers FC. If people are concerned about that, then I hope this clears it up. I speak only for the Trust, but we'd want the best CEO, the best FD, the best Operations Manager, and the best Team Manager etc. the club could attract. Definitely.

 

If the initial structure lends itself to fans rep's (i.e. some grass roots, not just money) being on the board then any Rangers fan should be able to stand (or fall) in a free and open members' election. That includes current RST Board members, the Euro-neds, and Gersnet posters. I know this sounds ridiculous, but I would argue that even maineflyer could stand. Well maybe that's stretching it a bit but in my ideal world, anybody can stand and I certainly hope that's the case.

 

The OMOV issue tortures everyone it seems (apart from the people with the big money). I think we need to be grown-up about things and accept that if you are going to put in �£1m or �£1k then you might get a different say from the next guy who puts in a tenner. Where to draw the lines is the issue, with the added concern that money = power once again. This is just a personal opinion but I see the ownership of Rangers by fans as a process and I'll be happy to secure as much as possible if the first stage is meaningful and the next stage, in principal, is more.

 

It's well known that rich guys dont necessarily get rich by being nice guys at the same time, so the issue of wealthy people being inclined to share power is sensitive & absolutely crucial. That is why diplomacy and co-operation is required at certain stages and why mischief-making is unhelpful at certain times.

[pete 2,499]

I can assure you that there will be no "guaranteed places" for people in supporters groups on the board of Rangers FC. If people are concerned about that, then I hope this clears it up. I speak only for the Trust, but we'd want the best CEO, the best FD, the best Operations Manager, and the best Team Manager etc. the club could attract. Definitely.

 

If the initial structure lends itself to fans rep's (i.e. some grass roots, not just money) being on the board then any Rangers fan should be able to stand (or fall) in a free and open members' election. That includes current RST Board members, the Euro-neds, and Gersnet posters. I know this sounds ridiculous, but I would argue that even maineflyer could stand. Well maybe that's stretching it a bit but in my ideal world, anybody can stand and I certainly hope that's the case.

 

The OMOV issue tortures everyone it seems (apart from the people with the big money). I think we need to be grown-up about things and accept that if you are going to put in �£1m or �£1k then you might get a different say from the next guy who puts in a tenner. Where to draw the lines is the issue, with the added concern that money = power once again. This is just a personal opinion but I see the ownership of Rangers by fans as a process and I'll be happy to secure as much as possible if the first stage is meaningful and the next stage, in principal, is more.

 

It's well known that rich guys dont necessarily get rich by being nice guys at the same time, so the issue of wealthy people being inclined to share power is sensitive & absolutely crucial. That is why diplomacy and co-operation is required at certain stages and why mischief-making is unhelpful at certain times.

 

What worries me with your statement, and i have no knowledge of what actually went on, is that a handful of people could force a large number of the RST board members to step down and stay in power without calling for a vote of non-confidence. Then the said members stay in control of the RST without putting it to a vote. As i say i don't know what went on but this is the message i have envisaged. This gives me little confidence to put people in power who have got there through dictator antics. As i say this is looking from the outside in.

[Union City Blue 0]

Sorry Pete, but I've no idea what you mean.

[craig 5,199]

I think, though I am no mind-reader, that pete is looking at the previous resignations at the RST. Seems to me he is using that example of a bunch of RST board members resigning, leaving it for the remainder to take over without there being elections.

 

Could be wrong though.

 

FWIW I dont think that any organisation would last long at all with that type of attitude (manipulating constitutions and bye-laws to ensure the powers that be remain the powers that be) when people have significant funds on the line - and I am sure the Trust recognise that anyway.

[pete 2,499]

Sorry Pete, but I've no idea what you mean.

 

Why did so many of the RST board resign last year?

[pete 2,499]

I think, though I am no mind-reader, that pete is looking at the previous resignations at the RST. Seems to me he is using that example of a bunch of RST board members resigning, leaving it for the remainder to take over without there being elections.

 

Could be wrong though.

 

FWIW I dont think that any organisation would last long at all with that type of attitude (manipulating constitutions and bye-laws to ensure the powers that be remain the powers that be) when people have significant funds on the line - and I am sure the Trust recognise that anyway.

 

Yes that was my point Craig,thanks. As i said i shouldn't really get involved in these arguments as i don't know enough about them.