Apologies, 3 Points and Parties

[Frankie 8,149]

Frankie what they are doing is what all amangement now do , when asked questions they cannot answer they turn the tables and answer back with a question back making you out to be negative or any other decription you choose to make as long as it is anti them , my company actually send management on courses on how to do this , it's no wonder no one flies from Glasgow anymore oops

 

I know exactly what they are doing and quite frankly the guilty parties should be embarrassed with their lack of professionalism and dignity.

 

In a period where the Trust need to lead, need to unify and need to be transparent; they have done the opposite.

[plgsarmy 111]

The fact is we are where we are and nothing will or can change the past , whilst I agree with maineflyer in that until we get a full expanation on why the current RST board took the decisions they did especially with regards " the special tasks and disciplinary committee " we will forever hold the current incumbents with suspicion , well I will anyway .

 

However nothing that anyone says on here will effect any change amongst the present RST board so best let sleeping dogs lie . More pertinant is how they conduct themselves in the present and the members such as UCB and oneamoruso help restore faith to a certain degree though I still do not fully understand where MD thinks he is going or if he expects to use the RST as a means to an end , only time will tell .

 

Just to clarify, it was not a disciplinary committee and that word was not in the title.

[Frankie 8,149]

The fact is we are where we are and nothing will or can change the past , whilst I agree with maineflyer in that until we get a full expanation on why the current RST board took the decisions they did especially with regards " the special tasks and disciplinary committee " we will forever hold the current incumbents with suspicion , well I will anyway .

 

However nothing that anyone says on here will effect any change amongst the present RST board so best let sleeping dogs lie . More pertinant is how they conduct themselves in the present and the members such as UCB and oneamoruso help restore faith to a certain degree though I still do not fully understand where MD thinks he is going or if he expects to use the RST as a means to an end , only time will tell .

 

I could easily post a few alternatives to PLG's version of events above but this already happened on RM 18 months ago.

 

I don't see what myself or the Trust would gain out of re-enacting a 'battle' neither of us arguably won. Which is why MD and DE's behaviour the other day puzzled me even more.

 

Anyway, I'm away to bed now so I'll be happy to answer any questions (as best I can) on Tuesday when I return to work. Hopefully there will be no need and tomorrow's AGM should give us enough material for a month until the club is sold.

[rbr 1,247]

Just to clarify, it was not a disciplinary committee and that word was not in the title.

 

sorry mate but I had many debates on FF with rst board members on this very question when it all transpired 18 months ago , this committee had the power to oversee and take disciplinary action as it saw fit , that was never denied , in fact it was acknowledged that it's primary role was to make sure the board members at the time did nothing that certain members didn't know about

[Bluedell 5,329]

Just to clarify, it was not a disciplinary committee and that word was not in the title.

 

 

Just to clarify that discipline was to be part of this commitee's remit. Edit: however I accept that the definition of "discipline" and what the phrase meant is open to interpretation.

 

However this subject has been debated many times on various boards and I really don't see the point in rehashing it. I'd agree with plgsarmy that the whole thing is based on people's opinions and interpretation and therefore there can never be a definitive answer as to people's intentions. As I said on here last week, there were faults on both "sides".

 

And thanks for posting, plgsarmy. Hopefully this won't be the last thread you contribute to on here.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Bluedell

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

I have kept out of this thread and read with interest the debate and different viewpoints from current RST board members, ex-RST board members, current RST members, ex-RST members and bears who have never had any connection with the RST.

 

I have been a member of the RST since the start, and I invited Colin Glass along to our RSC to do one of his first such presentations to our club membership in 2003 which resulted in our club buying every member 50 shares in Rangers to ensure we had a voice as not just supporters but shareholders, so supporter shareholders/ownership is something I approve of in general.

 

When all the fall-out happened, I watched with interest the ensuing debate, and as well as what was posted on the boards here, and on RM/FF, I got PM's/emails/calls from both sides telling their POV on what happened.

 

Suffice to say, IMO, there was fault on both sides. The lack of communication and trust amongst the board members spiralled to almost paranoid levels, and a split was inevitable by Spring 2008.

 

What disheartened me was that although I had both sides telling me their side of the story, both sides wanted things to remain private, and I gave my word that I would keep that, and I am not about to re-open all this up now.

 

The place to have the debate in public was at the SGM, or the AGM of 2008. Unfortunately, from the 7 who resigned, none of them turned up at the SGM (I appreciate some were on holiday etc), and only 1 turned up at the AGM, the former vice-chairman, who was thanked for his work and nothing more was said about it.

 

Both meetings had a ridiculously small turnout for such an important couple of meetings, under 50 at both from my memory, so clearly not too many members were that bothered about it, or prepared to just let things go and move on.

 

That is what the 7 seem to have done in the main, and to my mind that is what the current board members have done also.

 

This all gets stoked up from time to time by other bears, who generally are either ex-RST members (non-board), or never have been members of the RST.

 

Quickly, threads disintegrate into name-calling, snide digs, and arguments over who said what, with the dispute that remained quietly buried for a while all coming back up and gone over again.

 

I can see no benefit to anyone to keep going over old ground. The former board members had their say with their statement, passed up the chance to have their say face to face at either of the 2 meetings in 2008, and have generally moved on to other projects. The remaining board members have many more better things to do than continually go over old ground that has been done already. The RST membership have had ample opportunity to ask any questions they want to know about in the time since, at the 2008 SGM, the 2008 AGM, and the 2009 AGM that under 30 people attended, and of course by just asking through the normal channels. Non-RST members who looked on with some interest have no right to know what went on, as it did not affect them. Of course, the non-RST members are (or should be) tomorrows target members, so from that point of view they are interested observers, and are perfectly entitled to ask questions about this, if they see fit. However, with the passing of time, it becomes much less important that the current boards activities, policies, and board structure, to the point that now, around 18 months later, it is completely irrelevant.

 

Other than pot-stirring and mischief-making, I can see no relevance of going over this old ground again. It is as relevant as any outdated policy of the RST's in that it was an important event in the RST's history, but has absolutely no relevance to what is going on today.

[pete 2,499]

Thanks everyone for the posts above. While i agree with rbr that we cannot change the past and we should move forward, i do believe that it is worth while to try and heal old wounds of the past as this was not a small argument but a major earthquake that split the RST down the middle.(Maybe even more than the middle) Let us not kid our selves on that this is a problem of 18 months ago this is a problem that still smoulders today. The RST's decision not to back the Setting the Standards project, a project that all Rangers supporters could only stand behind, was imo a crazy decision based on old squabbles other than a will to represent the best wishes of Rangers.

Hopefully tomorrow's\today's AGM will throw up some answers that will help us on our way forward.

[pete 2,499]

I have kept out of this thread and read with interest the debate and different viewpoints from current RST board members, ex-RST board members, current RST members, ex-RST members and bears who have never had any connection with the RST.

 

I have been a member of the RST since the start, and I invited Colin Glass along to our RSC to do one of his first such presentations to our club membership in 2003 which resulted in our club buying every member 50 shares in Rangers to ensure we had a voice as not just supporters but shareholders, so supporter shareholders/ownership is something I approve of in general.

 

When all the fall-out happened, I watched with interest the ensuing debate, and as well as what was posted on the boards here, and on RM/FF, I got PM's/emails/calls from both sides telling their POV on what happened.

 

Suffice to say, IMO, there was fault on both sides. The lack of communication and trust amongst the board members spiralled to almost paranoid levels, and a split was inevitable by Spring 2008.

 

What disheartened me was that although I had both sides telling me their side of the story, both sides wanted things to remain private, and I gave my word that I would keep that, and I am not about to re-open all this up now.

 

The place to have the debate in public was at the SGM, or the AGM of 2008. Unfortunately, from the 7 who resigned, none of them turned up at the SGM (I appreciate some were on holiday etc), and only 1 turned up at the AGM, the former vice-chairman, who was thanked for his work and nothing more was said about it.

 

Both meetings had a ridiculously small turnout for such an important couple of meetings, under 50 at both from my memory, so clearly not too many members were that bothered about it, or prepared to just let things go and move on.

 

That is what the 7 seem to have done in the main, and to my mind that is what the current board members have done also.

 

This all gets stoked up from time to time by other bears, who generally are either ex-RST members (non-board), or never have been members of the RST.

 

Quickly, threads disintegrate into name-calling, snide digs, and arguments over who said what, with the dispute that remained quietly buried for a while all coming back up and gone over again.

 

I can see no benefit to anyone to keep going over old ground. The former board members had their say with their statement, passed up the chance to have their say face to face at either of the 2 meetings in 2008, and have generally moved on to other projects. The remaining board members have many more better things to do than continually go over old ground that has been done already. The RST membership have had ample opportunity to ask any questions they want to know about in the time since, at the 2008 SGM, the 2008 AGM, and the 2009 AGM that under 30 people attended, and of course by just asking through the normal channels. Non-RST members who looked on with some interest have no right to know what went on, as it did not affect them. Of course, the non-RST members are (or should be) tomorrows target members, so from that point of view they are interested observers, and are perfectly entitled to ask questions about this, if they see fit. However, with the passing of time, it becomes much less important that the current boards activities, policies, and board structure, to the point that now, around 18 months later, it is completely irrelevant.

 

Other than pot-stirring and mischief-making, I can see no relevance of going over this old ground again. It is as relevant as any outdated policy of the RST's in that it was an important event in the RST's history, but has absolutely no relevance to what is going on today.

 

I agree fully with you but the fact is hopefully in the future Rangers supporters are going to be asked to put their hard earned cash into the club.In doing that we have to hope that the right people are in the right place to run things correctly. Unfortunately the RST don't look to me to be the vehicle that i trust to take us forward.

[Bluedell 5,329]

The place to have the debate in public was at the SGM, or the AGM of 2008. Unfortunately, from the 7 who resigned, none of them turned up at the SGM (I appreciate some were on holiday etc), and only 1 turned up at the AGM, the former vice-chairman, who was thanked for his work and nothing more was said about it.

 

I believe that 6 out of the 7 could not attend the SGM due to holidays or pre-arranged commitments and there were 2 at the 2008 AGM and one at the 2009 AGM, where, as you correctly say, no members took the opportunity to raise any questions.

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

I agree fully with you but the fact is hopefully in the future Rangers supporters are going to be asked to put their hard earned cash into the club.In doing that we have to hope that the right people are in the right place to run things correctly. Unfortunately the RST don't look to me to be the vehicle that i trust to take us forward.

 

Pete, you must also remember that the board of the RST has changed quite significantly since early 2008. While I recognise and am disappointed that they have lost a lot of very good and talented individuals, they appointed 7 board members at the 2008 AGM and another 4 at the 2009 AGM, plus whoever has been co-opted in between (if any, i dont know). Obviously some of the 4 who cam in in 2009 could have replaced some of the 7 who were appointed in 2008 if you see what I mean, but nonetheless there have been big changes.

 

It is of course entirely your right to decide if you trust them with your cash, as it will be mine when the time comes. In my opinion this will succeed or fail on the detail of the plans put forward, whenever that is. It is vitally important that they get this right, as only in the right crcumstances will the Rangers support back any investment vehicle.

 

I would like to see them narrow it down to 2 or 3 schemes, then put it out there for debate, to both RST members and otherwise, to see what is popular, or to perhaps get some feedback on an alternative or even some slight adjustments where necessary before it becomes a reality.

 

The RST's biggest problem since the start has always been a lack of communication to it's members, and whilst the board members have changed many times since 2003, the main problem has always remained. Yes, the board has been elected to carry out the work, and shouldn't have to run everything by the members at all times or everything would grind to a halt, but certainly for something of this importance, just coming out with a finalised plan and saying here you are, please back this, would be wrong, but I am sure they are well aware of this and are planning the consultation as we speak.

 

It would be nice to hear some confirmation of this of course, just to put minds at ease, but obviously there is a lot going on just now, and they may be further away from a finalised plan than they initially thought they would be by now.

 

Doing this would go some way to having bears like yourself and many many others who are currently sceptical about those in charge, see that they are now worthy of being taken seriously, as they claim in their cometh the hour stuff.