Apologies, 3 Points and Parties

[pete 2,499]

Read my post after yours.

 

Explain to me just why people who are volunteering their time and expertise should feel that they are obligated to clarify their reasons for doing so ?

 

Regardless of whether this has split the RST these people have no obligation to you or I to give their reasons for resignations. If they stated (as I think some did) that they resigned for personal reasons then that is as good as it needs to get.

 

What right do you or I have to know specifically why they resigned ?

 

The above isnt satisfactory for many and, personally, I would like to know exactly why they resigned too but I can see that I have no right to know even as a RST member.

 

I haver seen plenty of corporate situations where this happens and the public reasons for resignations are nowhere near the ACTUAL reasons.

 

I totally agree with you if it is just a normal resignation but if these people have accepted the responsibility to represent 5000 supporters and do so for a number of years then surely when something happens that upsets the daily running of things enough for them to resign, then they also have the responsibility to explain their motives to the people who voted them on to represent them. My opinion.

[craig 5,199]

I totally agree with you if it is just a normal resignation but if these people have accepted the responsibility to represent 5000 supporters and do so for a number of years then surely when something happens that upsets the daily running of things enough for them to resign, then they also have the responsibility to explain their motives to the people who voted them on to represent them. My opinion.

 

All entitled to their opinions pete, I agree.

 

However, when they resign their position they no longer represent that organisation. Dont forget that some of the Board remained. Members can only request the reasons why they resigned and that question should only go to the Trust because that is the body which represents you.

 

If those who resigned requested no publicising of their reasons then the Trust should honour that. If they didnt then it is up to the Trust to either tell you or not. If not I suspect you would be within your rights to request a refund on your membership if you werent happy with what happened.

[pete 2,499]

The fact is this should have been fought out and cleared 18 months ago. Resigning is the easy way out. The people who resigned should have then resigned and put in a motion for a vote of no confidence to the members. I don't know the rules to do that but to resign because you don't agree and leave the ball park open to the things you don't agree with seems stupid to me.

[craig 5,199]

The fact is this should have been fought out and cleared 18 months ago. Resigning is the easy way out. The people who resigned should have then resigned and put in a motion for a vote of no confidence to the members. I don't know the rules to do that but to resign because you don't agree and leave the ball park open to the things you don't agree with seems stupid to me.

 

Harder to do that in practice pete. IMO a better way would have to have stayed on board as a faction and then when you have the AGM you have two sides fighting it out. Not sure though how that would work in reality or whether it is even part of the Trust constitution to allow it.

 

I agree with you that resigning on principle almost seems like giving up (sorry Frankie and others who resigned). And, as you say, if they resigned because they felt the Trust was going in a direction they didnt agree with then it would have been nice for the Trust members to know.

 

At the end of the day the Trust are representing its members - without its members it is nothing and we shouldnt forget that. If the Trust had decided to go in a different direction (I can only assume this because it seemed, at the time, to be gaining headway in achieving its main aim offan representation on the board) then the members should have been made aware.

 

More questions than answers sadly.

[pete 2,499]

Harder to do that in practice pete. IMO a better way would have to have stayed on board as a faction and then when you have the AGM you have two sides fighting it out. Not sure though how that would work in reality or whether it is even part of the Trust constitution to allow it.

 

I agree with you that resigning on principle almost seems like giving up (sorry Frankie and others who resigned). And, as you say, if they resigned because they felt the Trust was going in a direction they didnt agree with then it would have been nice for the Trust members to know.

 

At the end of the day the Trust are representing its members - without its members it is nothing and we shouldnt forget that. If the Trust had decided to go in a different direction (I can only assume this because it seemed, at the time, to be gaining headway in achieving its main aim offan representation on the board) then the members should have been made aware.

 

More questions than answers sadly.

 

That is what i mean Craig if you take on the responsibility for representing 5000 people then you should fight to the end to represent them and not leave the ball park open for a few pirates who have fought their way on to the board. Fighting from within is more of an option than walking away with your tail between your legs imo.

[craig 5,199]

That is what i mean Craig if you take on the responsibility for representing 5000 people then you should fight to the end to represent them and not leave the ball park open for a few pirates who have fought their way on to the board. Fighting from within is more of an option than walking away with your tail between your legs imo.

 

Not sure I agree with that though pete. Very much depends on the circumstances surrounding what happened and why.

[pete 2,499]

Not sure I agree with that though pete. Very much depends on the circumstances surrounding what happened and why.

 

That is why we need to know the circumstances!

[craig 5,199]

That is why we need to know the circumstances!

 

No we dont. We want to know, but we dont need to know.

 

How many times has a manager left a club through "mutual agreement" yet we all know that to be false ? That is the public line and that is where it ends.

 

There really isnt an obligation on those who resigned nor the Trust to make that public. If members dont like that then they should ask for a refund if life members or simply not renew if they are annual members.

[pete 2,499]

No we dont. We want to know, but we dont need to know.

 

How many times has a manager left a club through "mutual agreement" yet we all know that to be false ? That is the public line and that is where it ends.

 

There really isnt an obligation on those who resigned nor the Trust to make that public. If members dont like that then they should ask for a refund if life members or simply not renew if they are annual members.

 

Sorry Craig that statement is such a dumper on what an organisation is set up for. If you agree good. If you don't then fuck off. Sorry that gives no hope for the future at all.

[maineflyer 0]

What a fuss. But why?

 

Why is it suddenly a threat to privacy to ask those involved to clarify what happened? Why would anyone possibly feel threatened by revealing the truth?

 

Let's be absolutely clear about this. Those involved stood for, held and resigned from public office. This isn't some secret society we're talking about here, it's the Rangers Supporters Trust and, unless I've got this wrong, we're all Rangers Supporters. Many of us were or still are members of that organisation and were always denied the facts we should have been given as a matter of course. Instead, we were fed meaningless shite and kept in the dark. This was as much an ommission of those who resigned as those who remained in office and it sums up the attitude that condemned the Trust to failure from the outset. It is an attitude that continues to see the board of the Trust hold themselves above and beyond their membership and is why so many of us have concluded that the RST is run by and for a small elite group to the exclusion of it's core mission.

 

Personally, I share the views of Pete that those who resigned had a duty of care to the RST mambership to offer a full explanation of why they resigned in such numbers and to give the membership an opportunity to assume an informed opinion on the whole episode. I believe it was a grave mistake to adopt the outwardly pious stance of wishing "to spend more time with their families", if you catch my drift. Both sides in this affair put themselves and their personal reputations before the interests of the people they had undertaken to represent and that, quite franky, was and remains unacceptable.

 

Og course these views have become diluted by virtue of various personal friendships and loyalties, by the knowledge that (for example) Gersnet's and RM's own Frankie is one of those who chose to keep the affair under wraps. That causes us to offer excuses for and accommodate the secrecy, even transforming it somehow into an altogether inappropriate commodity called privacy. However, the RST is not a private party and those involved had not right to regards the resignations as private in the first place. There is no excuse for the lack of information that was offered by way of explanation and that's a simple fact.

 

It almost beggars belief that the inclination to deny openness runs so deep through every aspect of this community of ours. Much as I've come to respect his views and motives, I genuinely believe Frankie is making a huge mistake by continuing to deflect from this issue. This simply perpetuates and builds upon the most fundamental problems we have - dishonesty and mistrust.

 

It's not exactly rocket science to understand why the incumbent RST board might not wish to reveal the facts behind those resignations but isn't it absurd that those of us in the wider Rangers community continue to be denied a basis on which to judge all of those involved on both sides.