Name your price, Lloyds

[plgsarmy 111]

Yes I am. A life member in fact. Paid for annual members for a further 10 Gersnetters. Never attended a meeting as it is physically very difficult. Does that mean that I am a bad member and simply griping ?

 

The thing is, if the RST is such a progressive organisation then they should be taking the criticism on board and at least TRY to improve where possible. I havent seen much progression in that regard recently.

 

Some call it sniping, others will call it constructive criticism. At the end of the day those involved with the Trust need to be thick-skinned enough to know that they cant please everyone and there will be criticism but where people are having similar issues surely the Trust would be well served in trying to see if they could utilise some of the suggestions.

 

Now, how about someone from the Trust explain just why it was that the very same organisation ignored the fine STS Project ? Now, I defy anyone to tell me that particular project was not worth standing behind as it at least put forward suggestions for bettering the club. Why was it that only the Trust and FF did not acknowledge it ?

 

I thought the Trust was about bettering the club, no ? From their refusal to back STS it would appear to some that the Trust, rather than being about bettering the club is about progressing other agendas, especially when they have something tangible at hand to support (STS).

 

But is this all "griping" ? Call it what you will but IMO it is constructive criticism and so long as the Trust do not take it on board then their efforts will continue to be futile.

 

Craig, the main criticism we had was lack of communication. We now have an e-mail and text facility whereby we can inform members of what's going on. They can also e-mail us through our website. It's not perfect and some work still needs to be done.

Regarding the STS project, I'd be lying if I said that there wasn't still some bad feeling. I think many of us were annoyed by the statement issued as much of it was based on supposition rather than fact and it questioned the integrity of those who remained on the Board. However it's in the past now and I have personally spoken to five of the seven resignees and everything has been on a friendly basis. I think we have agreed that there were faults on both sides. I thought that most of the STS report was well written (and one of the contributors is now on our Board) and said so on another forum. However, having been part of the group that presented the Trust's 15 point plan to SDM and Martin Bain, they just aren't (weren't) interested. They think they know best. Perhaps under the new regime this will change.

[craig 5,195]

Craig, the main criticism we had was lack of communication. We now have an e-mail and text facility whereby we can inform members of what's going on. They can also e-mail us through our website. It's not perfect and some work still needs to be done.

Regarding the STS project, I'd be lying if I said that there wasn't still some bad feeling. I think many of us were annoyed by the statement issued as much of it was based on supposition rather than fact and it questioned the integrity of those who remained on the Board. However it's in the past now and I have personally spoken to five of the seven resignees and everything has been on a friendly basis. I think we have agreed that there were faults on both sides. I thought that most of the STS report was well written (and one of the contributors is now on our Board) and said so on another forum. However, having been part of the group that presented the Trust's 15 point plan to SDM and Martin Bain, they just aren't (weren't) interested. They think they know best. Perhaps under the new regime this will change.

 

Thanks for the response plgsarmy (no intent on changing username ?). This is the type of response I would like to see rather than the finger pointing from both sides. It serves no purpose for ANYONE and most certainly not the club.

 

Bad feeling I can understand - but at the expense of the greater good of the club ? The STS report was a well-written, well thought out project and offered a number of items which could have been expanded upon - a unified supporters front may have helped that. It seems that what you are saying is that because STS was put together by some of the resignees (as well as others) that those who remained on the board, due to what seem personal grievances, refused to acknowledge it. Surely you would accept that this is most definitely not in the best interests of the club ? It is these type of perceptions that the Trust are going to continue to struggle to overcome - because so long as people take things personal (you really shouldnt in these organisations) then there will always be a "them and us" mentality and the Trust will continue to regain any credibility they had.

 

I can understand the frustration that SDM and Bain "thought they knew best" but that should never prevent us as fans from continuing to convince them otherwise - the more armed we are and with good suggestions the better chance we "should" have of doing so.

 

Cheers for the response though plg

[plgsarmy 111]

Thanks for the response plgsarmy (no intent on changing username ?). This is the type of response I would like to see rather than the finger pointing from both sides. It serves no purpose for ANYONE and most certainly not the club.

 

Bad feeling I can understand - but at the expense of the greater good of the club ? The STS report was a well-written, well thought out project and offered a number of items which could have been expanded upon - a unified supporters front may have helped that. It seems that what you are saying is that because STS was put together by some of the resignees (as well as others) that those who remained on the board, due to what seem personal grievances, refused to acknowledge it. Surely you would accept that this is most definitely not in the best interests of the club ? It is these type of perceptions that the Trust are going to continue to struggle to overcome - because so long as people take things personal (you really shouldnt in these organisations) then there will always be a "them and us" mentality and the Trust will continue to regain any credibility they had.

 

I can understand the frustration that SDM and Bain "thought they knew best" but that should never prevent us as fans from continuing to convince them otherwise - the more armed we are and with good suggestions the better chance we "should" have of doing so.

 

Cheers for the response though plg

 

It's all pretty academic now I suppose but nothing was ever going to convince them. For clarification, there was never any real discussion on STS other than we were forwarded e-mails sent to all the supporters groups. There was never anything saying 'x is involved in this so we aren't getting involved'. I think it was more a realisation that it was futile under that regime. Just my thoughts though.

[pete 2,499]

It's all pretty academic now I suppose but nothing was ever going to convince them. For clarification, there was never any real discussion on STS other than we were forwarded e-mails sent to all the supporters groups. There was never anything saying 'x is involved in this so we aren't getting involved'. I think it was more a realisation that it was futile under that regime. Just my thoughts though.

 

Stating your opinion and offering positive feedback is never futile. That is what STS was all about. We must not start another "he said this, he said that" argument, but really if you stop asking questions and putting pressure on the people who can change things, then it is time to lie down and die.

[Cotter 0]

What you obviously do not take kindly to is anything that does not suit your version of events, the sooner you realise there was no bid and there was no rejection, the sooner you will be able to work out what is going on.

 

Oh go on then I'll bite. YOU tell me exactly what is going on. I don't have a "version of events". All I have to go on is speculation.

 

And don't just post a link to the Record please.

[maineflyer 0]

And yet again you post absolutely nothing constructive.

 

The difference between us is, I may be happy with the RST [maybe not] and you're obviously not. But I don't come onto forums every day crowing about how delighted I am. You seem to take great pleasure in going on and on posting about something you have no active concern with.

 

What absolute rubbish.

 

I take no pleasure whatsoever at the state of our RST. I think it's a disgrace the way the RST has been mis-managed and, as a committed Rangers supporter, I believe it is entirely necesary not to allow people like you to airbrush the failure and continue to build your wall of pretence around those who are patently incapable of delivering the original objectives of the Trust.

 

Why is it that people like you always end up promoting the silent alternative? Why does your defence always come down to attacking willingness of the ordinary supporter to speak up against the Trust?

[maineflyer 0]

Fair enough if you don't want to answer the questions but I think the answer may have offered some insight into the difficulties the Trust has faced since the start. At the beginning, many saw it as an anti-SDM vehicle and a way to put pressure on him. Many joined the Trust as a result. When it became apparent that this was a small minority view at that time a decision was made to try to work with the regime and we began regular meetings. The anti-Murray brigade didn't like this and others didn't like the fact that we couldn't always divulge what was said. We then went for Board representation but the club messed us about so much and it eventually led to the resignations in 2008. Since then we have been trying to improve things like communications and I think we have done so. I think if we were eg in a Newcastle situation then it would have been easy for a Trust to unite the fans but until recently the vast majority of the fans thought the sun shone out SDM's backside, some still do. Perhaps we should have done things differently, who knows whether that would have made any difference.

 

As for your refund, were you offered a phone call or a meeting to discuss your questions and concerns but you declined?

 

That's not an entirely inaccurate potted-history of the RST. We tried this and it didn't work. So we tried that but it still didn't work. Then we tried this and that but it rained in the morning and that was that. If things had been different we might have succeeded - but the weren't, so we didn't. But why should we be criticised just because it didn't work? We were doing the best we could and we're still here aren't we?

 

As for your phone call, the difference was that I insisted on debate taking place in public so that it wasn't later deniable. Your RST colleagues insisted on only conducting discussion in private. That was an impasse but it doesn't alter or justify the RST offering to refund a life membership as a means of killing a debate.

 

I should also point out here that for some considerable time I had given the RST ample opportunity to keep the matter private by asking questions by email via the RST website, and in private correspondence with certain RST board members. The only reply I ever received refused to divulge anything. So much for phone calls.

[maineflyer 0]

I note you didn't quote the second part of my post.

 

'Nuff said.

 

Have you made a new rule here? I quoted that part of your post that I then went on to respond to. What is the problem with that? Are you starting to struggle here?

[wabashcannonball 0]

Oh go on then I'll bite. YOU tell me exactly what is going on. I don't have a "version of events". All I have to go on is speculation.

 

And don't just post a link to the Record please.

 

 

Exactly what the puppetmaster told you, nothing.

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/rangersfc/Rangers-haven39t-attracted-a-single.5866552.jp

[calscot 0]

Exactly what the puppetmaster told you, nothing.

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/rangersfc/Rangers-haven39t-attracted-a-single.5866552.jp

 

Eh? That "news" item is almost two months old and before all the recent reports of an �£18M bid. The latter may or may not have happened but that story is about as relevant as a fart in a hurricane.