Apologies, 3 Points and Parties

[bmck 117]

What a ridiculous turn this conversation has taken. The members who resigned made a public statement for trust members. Presumably its still available on the archive. I can perfectly well understand frankie not wanting to go through it all again; those who resigned have no obligations to trust members, as they obviously felt they served them in resigning and saying why.

Edited December 6, 2009 by bmck

[maineflyer 0]

I got bored reading the thread so i'll summarise.

 

Essentially (and I say nothing no one doesn't know) an RST meeting was arranged (presumably by Mark Dingwall) in the absence of Frankie and a few others. The reason for this meeting, ultimately, was to help MD seize control of the RST whilst ousting Malcolm McNiven (I think) and a few others who didn't toe Mark's party line. This all occurred around the time that the trust were getting close to getting a fan on the board and MD wanted it to be him or someone he could influence.

 

This RST EGM meeting, that occured in spite of or against the wishes of (at least certainly in the absence of) the people MD wanted rid of on the RST board occurred. When Frankie etc found out, they were left in an untenable (sp) position and felt like they had to quit.

 

Just prior to this, the RST were the strongest they had been. Their quitting left a "strong" RST in the hands of MD etc. Fortunately, he and his cronies managed to fuck that up. And since then it's been a downward slope.

 

Apologies if I missed something out.

 

Someone on here recently stated that if the current RST board really had Rangers interests above their own they'd step down right away if it helped achieve aims such as a fan on the board. In the case of Frankie, those ex-board members and even UCB I believe that to be the case. Unfortunately I do no believe that MD has the interests of Rangers above himself and that is borne out by his actions. See the STS report as a good example.

Thanks all the same but, while I'm sure you're trying to help, I'd rather hear facts than conjecture and I'd rather hear it from those who actually know what happened.

[Super_Ally 0]

What a ridiculous turn this conversation has taken. The members who resigned, felt they ought to, and did, made a public statement for trust members. Presumably its still available on the archive.

 

Disagree. I don't often agree with MF, but it's clear that the lack of clarity on such a major issue within the trust holds them back now and will do until it is resolved in public. Might not be a popular answer, but doesn't make it any less true.

[Super_Ally 0]

Thanks all the same but, while I'm sure you're trying to help, I'd rather hear facts than conjecture and I'd rather hear it from those who actually know what happened.

 

Fair do's mate.

 

I'm not trying to "help" so much as wonder why we pussy foot around a man who ruined the RST when they were clsoe to achieving a big step towards their overall aims.

[bmck 117]

Disagree. I don't often agree with MF, but it's clear that the lack of clarity on such a major issue within the trust holds them back now and will do until it is resolved in public. Might not be a popular answer, but doesn't make it any less true.

 

What are you disagreeing with?

[maineflyer 0]

What a ridiculous turn this conversation has taken. The members who resigned made a public statement for trust members. Presumably its still available on the archive. I can perfectly well understand frankie not wanting to go through it all again; those who resigned have no obligations to trust members, as they obviously felt they served them in resigning and saying why.

Surely you're not saying that that statement was about informing anyone.

[maineflyer 0]

Fair do's mate.

 

I'm not trying to "help" so much as wonder why we pussy foot around a man who ruined the RST when they were clsoe to achieving a big step towards their overall aims.

 

I didn't mean that post to come across as I now realise it must have. No offence was intended, just clumsy and rushed language.

[bmck 117]

Surely you're not saying that that statement was about informing anyone.

 

I guess Im going to have to play ignorant here - from my reading it said they formed a special meeting to force the resignation of the chairman, so they could oust people that disagreed with them. And so they quit. Am I missing something?

[Zappa 0]

Did you miss the bit where I said they made a public statement for the reasons for leaving?

That full public statement was linked to by someone on one of these threads a day or two ago, but I can't remember which one.

[Super_Ally 0]

What are you disagreeing with?

 

That the conversation took a ridiculous turn.

 

The vast majority of the fans >99% have no idea what happend with the RST, that was clearly a big issue. But we'll just never discuss it, fully, in truth and then pretend that everyone is trustworthy. It's a nonsense.