RST involved in new takeover bid?

[wabashcannonball 0]

I think there should be a D note slapped on this whole sorry crock.

[Frankie 8,199]

The quotes in that are months old. Half this story was peddled out last year. However it'll be interesting to see if the RST have had any dealings with him.

 

Appreciate that (although I can't remember Low being mentioned before admittedly) but it is interesting his name has cropped up again.

 

Perhaps one of the Trust bods could confirm his involvement - although I hasten to add his team of choice doesn't concern me all that much.

[Stefanovitch 0]

Does anyone have any indication on when the RST may be able to offer more information on wether their plan is a goer?

 

I appreciate it's difficult but one thing we've all agreed on through all these takeover rumours is that we need clarity. The support cannot be expected to blindly back any deal that sees Murray's days come to an end.

[Bluedell 5,367]

Does anyone have any indication on when the RST may be able to offer more information on wether their plan is a goer?

 

I appreciate it's difficult but one thing we've all agreed on through all these takeover rumours is that we need clarity. The support cannot be expected to blindly back any deal that sees Murray's days come to an end.

 

Plgsarmy said yesterday that they were preparing a press release. Nothing on it yet, though.

[Frankie 8,199]

Does anyone have any indication on when the RST may be able to offer more information on wether their plan is a goer?

 

I appreciate it's difficult but one thing we've all agreed on through all these takeover rumours is that we need clarity. The support cannot be expected to blindly back any deal that sees Murray's days come to an end.

 

Never heard it but I believe David Edgar was on Real Radio last night talking about their plans.

 

I doubt there is anything substantial to discuss as they've been keen to stress any plan remains exploratory and at an early stage.

[rbr 1,247]

To be honest, I don't think it is true of any site mate.

Yes, you'll always get your more vocal and less constructive posters on every site - those for and against the RST actually - but I find the suggestion actual sites are against the RST flawed.

 

These suggestions are merely an easy get-out clause for the Trust to avoid debate on such places. I certainly don't blame them for wanting to stay away from obtuse people intent on division but the generalisation that is permitted to happen about whole sites is just as false unfortunately.

 

On-topic, obviously McColl distancing himself is a blow to the Trust (and should be to all of us who are interested in fan ownership) but I'm certainly still want to hear what they have to say on the matter. Hopefully their statement will be ready today.

 

 

You cannot have spent much time on either RM or VB recently then Frankie .

[Frankie 8,199]

You cannot have spent much time on either RM or VB recently then Frankie .

 

I don't use VB but I do use RM to a reasonable degree.

 

I certainly appreciate a few posters there are difficult and often disingenuous when it comes to Trust debates but the myth is put across elsewhere that this is a site policy so to speak or that the majority of the site members are anti-Trust.

 

That is not the case IMO.

 

For example, it could be said that the converse is true about FF. Several posters are vocal there about RM (or other sites) in a negative sense but I wouldn't suggest for a minute everybody on that forum thinks the same thing.

 

I think suggestions of inter-site wars are mischief-making and don't stand up to scrutiny. It's a pity that some lend weight to this as it only increases division.

[maineflyer 0]

Slagging the RST for the press getting it wrong?

 

I haven't seen any "slagging" of the RST? Perhaps some merited scorn at yet another badly presented and implausible notion that once more deteriorates into abject confusion before it even gets off the ground?

 

1. This is an RST story. If the press got hold of it, they got hold of it from the RST and the RST didn't appear reluctant to discuss this on television or offer press quotes. Did the press get it wrong?

 

2. On the evidence of past performance, the prospect of the current RST board organising more than a T-shirt sale is bound to raise concerns in anyone with Rangers at heart. Especially when yet again we're treated to spurious press leaks, a complete lack of substance and contrary statements from key players. Is this really how a competent outfit goes about its business?

[rbr 1,247]

I don't use VB but I do use RM to a reasonable degree.

 

I certainly appreciate a few posters there are difficult and often disingenuous when it comes to Trust debates but the myth is put across elsewhere that this is a site policy so to speak or that the majority of the site members are anti-Trust.

 

That is not the case IMO.

 

For example, it could be said that the converse is true about FF. Several posters are vocal there about RM (or other sites) in a negative sense but I wouldn't suggest for a minute everybody on that forum thinks the same thing.

 

I think suggestions of inter-site wars are mischief-making and don't stand up to scrutiny. It's a pity that some lend weight to this as it only increases division.

 

 

And as for inter site wars , come on Frankie , you could drive a bus between the sites the divisions are that great on certain subjects

 

Sorry Frankie I have to disagree , in my experience the vast majority on RM equate the RST with FF and to a degree it's very understandable especially when thinking about one certain individual who has done more harm than good , VB is totally different and have their own reasons for disliking MD and therefore the RST .

 

 

On Rm I dont think I can remember seeing any positive threads on the RST , they usually get onvolved in the same petty arguements and name calling .

 

 

As for FF , it's very rare they even mention another site as these types of threads are usually chopped PDQ

[maineflyer 0]

And as for inter site wars , come on Frankie , you could drive a bus between the sites the divisions are that great on certain subjects

 

Sorry Frankie I have to disagree , in my experience the vast majority on RM equate the RST with FF and to a degree it's very understandable especially when thinking about one certain individual who has done more harm than good , VB is totally different and have their own reasons for disliking MD and therefore the RST .

 

 

On Rm I dont think I can remember seeing any positive threads on the RST , they usually get onvolved in the same petty arguements and name calling .

 

 

As for FF , it's very rare they even mention another site as these types of threads are usually chopped PDQ

 

There should be no doubt that the RST and FF are inextricably bound together and any recognition of this on other forums is surely a matter for the RST to deal with.

 

If other forums express a generally negative attitude towards the RST, isn't it just a possibility that this is a consensus born of experience?

 

If that attitude is coloured by the association with FF (and to an extent it undoubtedly is) then why hasn't the RST acknowledged this and sought a less captive profile? Could it be that a few individuals have never wanted the RST to be an independent organisation? Could it be the performance of certain RST board members on sites like RM has jaundiced many people against them, spreading ludicrous nonsense and leaving admin no alternative but to ban them?