Name your price, Lloyds

[plgsarmy 111]

I don't feel the need to respond to EB's post and digress the debate as you've said much of what I would have in response (and probably in a more legible way).

 

One thing I would say to EB. Seeing as he is unwilling to take any criticism of the trust; I don't understand your view that anyone who doesn't support he trust 100% regardless of the dubious agenda of some of the head honchos is to create another fan group.

 

The fan base as a whole, particularly those active online and within organisations already agree we have too many groups who are dividing the support, making it difficult to rally around behind one flag and having no direction or large support. So why are you suggesting forming another group? All that will do is weaken the fan base as a whole and further divide the support.

 

I would also add I was formally a member of the trust though not really active due to a number of reasons. When my membership lapsed I didn't renew it because I was not very comfortable with the way control was seized by individuals whose main concerns seemed to be personal advancement rather than the more honourable aims the Trust was formed upon. If that is not a fair reflection of events that is a fault of the clandestine nature of the RST and it's members and not those viewing from the outside as there is still a lot of secrecy over precisely what happened.

 

SA, you're making these statements (that I've put in bold) based not on facts but on information you may have gleaned from messageboards and perhaps talking to people whose views may not be entirely objective. For me, the RST was the most important thing in the whole sorry episode. I had no agenda nor did I have any particular loyalty to any individual(s). I'm not sure what you mean about 'the dubious agenda of some of the head honchos' or the fact that 'control was seized'. The Chairman resigned as he felt he no longer had the support of the Board - based on feedback from one person from a meeting that had taken place the previous evening that he had not attended. I personally think that we were all completely behind him but we wanted a bit more communication about what was happening with his discussions with the Club. There was also a suggestion that we had to examine the rules we had in place as a Board, particularly regarding meeting the Club. This suggestion was the one that led to complete meltdown but it was open to interpretation. It's interesting that five people resigned who weren't actually part of the discussion. I'm not slagging these people off in any way, as i said I am still friendly with most of them and respect them. I'm just sad that we couldn't have a clear the air meeting as I think most of the issues could have been resolved. For people to assume that what happened was a pre-meditated act to remove people from the Board is ludicrous, in my opinion of course.

[plgsarmy 111]

While certain RST board members are clearly unfit to represent themselves, let alone anyone else, I'm not sure there is any widespread animosity towards individuals in that organisation. What is certainly evident is a profound and settled dissatisfaction at the lack of achievement from the RST, either to build credibility and strength through membership or to otherwise influence the club or other aspects of society in respect of Rangers.

 

I do believe there is still considerable goodwill towards the idea of a Supporters Trust and that the widespread rejection of the RST is entirely down to the behaviour and performance of those running it. Most other executives that had been shunned to this extent by its constituency would have resigned long ago and the sheer intransigence of the current RST board is progressively alienating more and more members and potential members alike.

 

There comes a time when everyone has to accept the judgement of their own track record and no amount of the peculiar defence seen elsewhere in this thread can obscure the paucity of those running the RST. That these people continue in office is little short of a disgrace. That they should come on forums such as this to deflect and deny by attacking their critics in such a petulant manner is only typical of the entire RST malaise. This unwillingness to address the shortcomings that everyone else can see but which they can only respond to with acrimony and blame. To any serious observer, the whole RST affair is little short of pathetic.

 

You know Mainflyer, in the history of the RST there has probably been in excess of 50 people on the RST Board, some very talented individuals, others perhaps less so but committed Rangers fans anyway. During that time people haven't exactly been queuing up to get involved or offer advice. Think of him as you want but SDM is a very clever man with professional PR consultants behind him. I think it's to our credit thate we are the first port of call for the media, despite them being told by the club not to speak to us. I don't think we have failed. We have created thousands of new shareholders, we have defended the Club and the fans in the media when nobody else would and we continue to act in the Club's and fans' best interests which will hopefully become apparent in the not too distant future.

[Super_Ally 0]

SA, you're making these statements (that I've put in bold) based not on facts but on information you may have gleaned from messageboards and perhaps talking to people whose views may not be entirely objective. For me, the RST was the most important thing in the whole sorry episode. I had no agenda nor did I have any particular loyalty to any individual(s). I'm not sure what you mean about 'the dubious agenda of some of the head honchos' or the fact that 'control was seized'. The Chairman resigned as he felt he no longer had the support of the Board - based on feedback from one person from a meeting that had taken place the previous evening that he had not attended. I personally think that we were all completely behind him but we wanted a bit more communication about what was happening with his discussions with the Club. There was also a suggestion that we had to examine the rules we had in place as a Board, particularly regarding meeting the Club. This suggestion was the one that led to complete meltdown but it was open to interpretation. It's interesting that five people resigned who weren't actually part of the discussion. I'm not slagging these people off in any way, as i said I am still friendly with most of them and respect them. I'm just sad that we couldn't have a clear the air meeting as I think most of the issues could have been resolved. For people to assume that what happened was a pre-meditated act to remove people from the Board is ludicrous, in my opinion of course.

 

I clarified my post by stating that if my interpretation of events, based on the paucity of information, was wrong then that was perhaps more a fault of those involved for not clarifying the situation. Instead fans on the outside, or even then RST members had had to make a decision based on the information available.

 

It is also my understanding (with reference to the part of your post highlighted in red) that the meeting you refer to was conducted under somewhat nefarious means and was actually held behind the chairman's back and broke RST rules. My recollection of the precise events here is somewhat hazy and you will quite rightly point out that I am basing my opinion again on one version of events. Again I blame those involved for playing not being entirely open about what was going on.

 

I do not mean to blame you personally, I don't know who you are outwith your online moniker, but I do realise that my statements must obviously be seen as an attack on yourself. I do not even blame all current RST members. Union City Blue who posted on here seemed like a welcome addition to the RST board, he was honest and open to criticism I felt. However, there are certainly members of the board who appear to be out for their own interests ahead of that of the club. No better highlighted than by the fact that there was no support for STS imo. You can say that you felt it was doomed to failure, but if it was an RST or FF driven initiative you (the RST as a whole) would still have supported it even in spite of the expected negative outcome. So that excuse will not wash with me.

 

Whilst we can perhaps see there are some disingenuous (sp) characters who will not support the RST and appear to want to attack it whatever the trust achieves, I don't think that applies to myself or some on here. I think the RST now is too driven by ego that the trust and it's supporters are afraid of an wary of all and any criticism, even if the intentions are hounourable.

 

That's just how I see things as a now outsider and imagine it is a view point if not shared by many then certainly something they can relate to. I would like nothing more than a positive, effective RST that could drive change within Rangers for the better, however I am less than convinced that is possible under current leadership.

 

Edit: I appreciate your taking the time to tackle any criticisms and think that being more open to criticism and entering into debate with fans who maybe are lacking in a full picture can only benefit the trust.

[andy steel 0]

"we continue to act in the Club's and fans' best interests"

 

I can act in my own best interests, thank you very much.

[plgsarmy 111]

I clarified my post by stating that if my interpretation of events, based on the paucity of information, was wrong then that was perhaps more a fault of those involved for not clarifying the situation. Instead fans on the outside, or even then RST members had had to make a decision based on the information available.

 

It is also my understanding (with reference to the part of your post highlighted in red) that the meeting you refer to was conducted under somewhat nefarious means and was actually held behind the chairman's back and broke RST rules. My recollection of the precise events here is somewhat hazy and you will quite rightly point out that I am basing my opinion again on one version of events. Again I blame those involved for playing not being entirely open about what was going on.

 

I do not mean to blame you personally, I don't know who you are outwith your online moniker, but I do realise that my statements must obviously be seen as an attack on yourself. I do not even blame all current RST members. Union City Blue who posted on here seemed like a welcome addition to the RST board, he was honest and open to criticism I felt. However, there are certainly members of the board who appear to be out for their own interests ahead of that of the club. No better highlighted than by the fact that there was no support for STS imo. You can say that you felt it was doomed to failure, but if it was an RST or FF driven initiative you (the RST as a whole) would still have supported it even in spite of the expected negative outcome. So that excuse will not wash with me.

 

Whilst we can perhaps see there are some disingenuous (sp) characters who will not support the RST and appear to want to attack it whatever the trust achieves, I don't think that applies to myself or some on here. I think the RST now is too driven by ego that the trust and it's supporters are afraid of an wary of all and any criticism, even if the intentions are hounourable.

 

That's just how I see things as a now outsider and imagine it is a view point if not shared by many then certainly something they can relate to. I would like nothing more than a positive, effective RST that could drive change within Rangers for the better, however I am less than convinced that is possible under current leadership.

 

Edit: I appreciate your taking the time to tackle any criticisms and think that being more open to criticism and entering into debate with fans who maybe are lacking in a full picture can only benefit the trust.

 

For clarification, the Chairman e-mailed mid-afternoon to say he couldn't attend. There was talk of cancelling the meeting but one Board member was on his way from the Midlands and we still had quite a full agenda (it was the week before Manchester) so 11 people decided to go ahead with the meeting. It certainly wasn't behind anyone's back nor did it break any Trust rule that I'm aware of. We held an EGM to explain to members what had happened but I appreciate that not everyone could attend and, with hindsight, perhaps we should have issued something further.

[plgsarmy 111]

I can act in my own best interests, thank you very much.

 

 

Good for you.:box:

[Frankie 8,150]

SA, you're making these statements (that I've put in bold) based not on facts but on information you may have gleaned from messageboards and perhaps talking to people whose views may not be entirely objective. For me, the RST was the most important thing in the whole sorry episode. I had no agenda nor did I have any particular loyalty to any individual(s). I'm not sure what you mean about 'the dubious agenda of some of the head honchos' or the fact that 'control was seized'. The Chairman resigned as he felt he no longer had the support of the Board - based on feedback from one person from a meeting that had taken place the previous evening that he had not attended. I personally think that we were all completely behind him but we wanted a bit more communication about what was happening with his discussions with the Club. There was also a suggestion that we had to examine the rules we had in place as a Board, particularly regarding meeting the Club. This suggestion was the one that led to complete meltdown but it was open to interpretation. It's interesting that five people resigned who weren't actually part of the discussion. I'm not slagging these people off in any way, as i said I am still friendly with most of them and respect them. I'm just sad that we couldn't have a clear the air meeting as I think most of the issues could have been resolved. For people to assume that what happened was a pre-meditated act to remove people from the Board is ludicrous, in my opinion of course.

 

I've no wish to become in embroiled in further arguments about this but to suggest the former Chairman resigned because of feedback from one person from one meeting is wholly wrong.

 

Neither would I have thought any of the seven people who resigned would have anything other than their concern for the organisation as paramount. I can't speak for others of course but I didn't resign because of agendas or because of loyalty to anyone either. 'Clear the air' meetings after the fact may also sound good now but I think we both know what happened that week meant any working relationship would have been bordering on impossible.

 

However, what happened, happened and we all need to move on from it so I doubt going over old ground and having people from different 'camps' giving subjectively different versions of events of which 'neutrals' can't really form a fair opinion is constructive for anyone.

 

The facts are the RST remain an important representative vehicle for Rangers fans - irrespective of members numbers actually - because of their (usually) sound work in the media and beyond. In saying that, there are still various problems with the organisation and people (members or not) will criticise therein. Ergo, as has always been the case, the RST board will have to determine which of these criticisms are well-meaning and valid or which of them are less constructive. Unfortunately there will always be those who wish to be obtuse in the representation debate (from both sides in fact) but the opinions of hundreds/thousands of Rangers supporters should not be dismissed because there may be a vocal minority who may be overly strong in their criticisms.

 

I think Gersnet in particular provides a valuable feedback tool for the RST in that regard as the criticism we offer is valid, is well-meaning and is constructive. Hopefully that feedback won't be ignored or the offer of help via interesting projects given the cold-shoulder just because a former board member may administrate this site.

 

The same goes for the online (and offline) community at large and the RST would do well to take that on board no matter how difficult such missionary work may prove to be.

 

[gisabeer 409]

I can act in my own best interests, thank you very much.

 

 

Correct. The rst dont represent the fans on a whole, only their members which at the last count was around 2,000. Hardly the voice of opinion of the masses is it.

[Frankie 8,150]

Correct. The rst dont represent the fans on a whole, only their members which at the last count was around 2,000. Hardly the voice of opinion of the masses is it.

 

The RST have never claimed to represent anyone other than their members. Of course the media may misinterpret that (and the Trust itself may be happy to play along to give an impression of being a larger lobby) but I think there are far more important issues to discuss than David Edgar supposedly being a fans chief or how many members they have this week or next.

 

The club is for sale and we're still struggling to find a buyer who is prepared to put their money where their mouth is and put together a credible plan that we can all buy into while looking to the support to take a more important (and valued) part in the club's future.

 

The RST promised us they'd be at the forefront of this and promised they'd be looking to unite the support. That's what I'm more interested in and, in the latter, especially concerned about as I've seen little evidence of that with key board members being anything other than unifying in their behaviour. As fan leaders (no matter who they represent) they have a duty to be stronger in character, more constructive in their relations and more transparent in what they want to achieve. That's where the Trust are failing but hopefully we can see improvement over the coming weeks and months where the club's very future is at stake.

 

By the same token, we have similar responsibilities to take seriously if we really want to be involved. I'm confident that is the case on this forum.

[maineflyer 0]

Correct. The rst dont represent the fans on a whole, only their members which at the last count was around 2,000. Hardly the voice of opinion of the masses is it.

 

That count must have been a very long time ago then because they would walk on coals to be able to boast about 2000 members. You can almost hear the cringe every time you ask them about their membership because this, above all else, stands in judgement and condemnation of the RST performance over the years.

 

The RST can send their envoys to whatever forums they like but the one thing their propaganda campaigns cannot argue with is the distinctly low regard in which that organisation is held by its own constituency. Is there any better reason for changing the old guard immediately?

 

On that point though, it's laughable and entirely revealing that no such defence is ever mounted on Vanguardbears, where they seem to shrink from their task in a most obvious manner..... perhaps further revealing the underlying political agenda that has plagued the RST since its inception.