The Failure of the Fans Groups

[Frankie 8,552]

I think it is also important to apply the same principles to the Assembly.

 

While they may not have the same baggage as the Trust, and while they may have a website that is immediately accessible in terms of its own forum, there isn't enough activity on there from its representatives to make it a worthwhile exercise in open debate.

 

This shows there is a balance to be found and I think this can be achieved to allow open, accessible and regular debate between board members, potential members and existing members.

 

I'm really not quite sure what the difficulty is in providing this.

 

PS: Obviously going offline is more difficult to provide something for fans/members to contribute. This can be done though and both organisations are shirking their responsibilities in some respects with regard to that.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Frankie

[plgsarmy 111]

But you did start such a 'campaign' in January last year.

 

Did that alienate more people than it did attract members?

 

WDB had a go at the RFC Board, not just SDM. The Captain of Industry then came out all guns blazing to attack us without addressing any of the issues raised. It was made clear that we continued to back the team 100% and many may have seen it as an attack on the Club rather than those running it. Whilst we did attract some new members, I can't say how many people it alienated.

[wabashcannonball 0]

The Escrow account idea looks decent but as I said to the same guy on FF, the issue now is not seeing if people are interested, it is providing a valid and viable working model for fan ownership and THEN seeing if people are interested.

 

As it stands if the trust implimented Wabash's idea I would not go near it. If the Trust published a prospectus outlining a proposal, how the club would be run, how much money would be needed from each fan and and any other pertinant details I would take it all on board and if it added up, back it.

 

There is no point trying to judge how many are interested in fan ownership today, there is nothing for people to make a decision over and so the results would be completely and utterly worthless. If you provide the answers to some very valid questions, people who were not interested might just be.

 

 

It quite simply gives a benchmark of who if anyone, is willing to put their money into the supporter/club/involvement. It is pointless putting money into a prospectus......unless you know it is going to be money well spent.

 

As to why it hasn't happened before the answer is very simple......Turkey's don't vote for Christmas...

[maineflyer 0]

Supporter ownership is not a realistic objective for anyone to pursue, so why waste energy chasing shadows. That's not to condemn the principle but, in my opinion it's a battle that cannot be won and those are not the ones you willingly fight. Abandon the limelight for a while and concentrate on building a solid base from which to take on our owner and our many detractors. Just for a change, get smart and get equipped.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

It quite simply gives a benchmark of who if anyone, is willing to put their money into the supporter/club/involvement. It is pointless putting money into a prospectus......unless you know it is going to be money well spent.

 

As to why it hasn't happened before the answer is very simple......Turkey's don't vote for Christmas...

 

It doesnt though. It gives a benchmark as to who, if anyone, is prepared to put money into an account without having seen a workable plan. If a prospectus was published before the Escrow account was activated then you would get a decent idea of how many folk might be interested.

 

There are two ways to run a fans group; you either sit with your board and decide what you are going to do, then use that to attract membership or you attract membership on the basis of the members setting the mandate and then impliment it. If the trust is deciding to go the fan ownership route then it is trying to find backing from the support, not using its existing backing to develop. That means that the trust has to provide something, anything, for prospective members to make a decision on. As it stands we are asked to join on a vague ideal of fan representation and supporter ownership (leaving aside the trust representing fans in the media for a brief second, I will come back to it).

 

I am a cautious sceptic/optimist regarding fan ownership. I can see the benefits but I can see an awful lot of problems if it is managed poorly. That means that today, without seeing the nuts and bolts of a scheme, there is no way I can back it. If there was to be a document released that covered all the bases, was realistic and workable and would satisfy my own concerns then I would think it over and in all probability get right behind it and I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the support would do the same. That means that opening up with asking people to put money into an account, however easy it is to take back, is going to give nothing like a true reflection of how many folks might back the idea if it looked plausable. To go a stage further, if the trust asked people for money now, with no workable plan in the public domain (I guess they have been working on one recently, and if not I will be shocked) they would probably kill any chance they had of making it work; credibility would be questioned immediately and if uptake was low (which it 100% would be) then a perfectly valid idea might be killed stone dead before it was explored fully.

 

There is absolutely no way our support can ignore the idea of fan ownership. Murray, as a sole owner, pretty near killed the club in it's present form, we have been 'under offer' from another potential sole owner aince March and remain so with no tangible sign of a bid and we all know the problems that could have arisen if his bid had gone through. If we close the door now to fan ownership we accept that we will forever more be at the whim of an individual. Nobody out there is championing the fan ownership cause and that alone makes the trust an absolutely neccessary body in today's environment. There are flaws aplenty there but should the board of the trust work on them, it really is nothing that is not overcome-able.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Touching on media relations, after an earlier post I have had a right good think and decided that the trust should absolutely 100% remove itself from any type of debate on issues aside from fan ownership and/or fan representation. Commenting on anything and everything does little except make a few people happy and a whole lot say 'who the fuck are they to talk for me?'. That is undoubtably doing far more harm than good in terms of inter-fan relations and will even be pissing of the wider 'off-line' support. The trust are part of a parent body, that parent body should be dealing with media angles and the trust are clearly in a position to influence what happens regards this with the assembly.

 

Obviously this is all from someone on the outside and is just personal opinion, if the trust are inviting constructive criticism I would hope this is seen as just that.

[Frankie 8,552]

An excellent post N_L...

 

The media angle is a difficult one for the Trust (and the other groups). Obviously commenting in the media on any subject is a good way of raising their profile and some will say there's no such thing as bad publicity. In addition to that, it was always true (and probably still is) that there are spikes in the Trust membership when the RST are quoted in the media on controversial subjects.

 

That's because many, many fans are interested in the media debate and, from my experience, is one of the most debated subjects on and offline. As such, if the Trust decided to defer media relations to the Assembly then they would lose one guaranteed method of publicity. With David Edgar leaving that may be a good idea anyway but I'd imagine a lot of people will be disappointed given the Assembly (although well aware of the media phenomenon) are less active in this area.

 

On the other hand, being less controversial may help them attract more of the type of fan who is more interested in representation per se (i.e. shareholding, director status and ownership) who may be put off by the Trust's often 'tabloid' reputation.

 

It is a risk but, as it stands, the Trust has arguably failed in it's primary aims so a change of tact is probably necessary. Unfortunately for those in charge that may mean more resignations as their position is surely untenable given the flawed WDB campaign and lack of leadership for the support during such crucial times. That lack of continuity is disappointing but as much as we need a clear-out of the old guard at Ibrox, perhaps the same broom is required in our fan groups.

[wabashcannonball 0]

You don't open a business of this size unless you know you have customers/shareholders committed to its survival/success, you don't spend mega bucks on business plans before you have viable finance on a more than maybe basis.

 

A viable business plan/prospectus would have to be done by professionals, that would cancel out and rightly so ANY Rangers supporters body.

 

It would effectively remove any sembelance of power from said bodies in a fan buyout, that power would lie with the fans/shareholders and rightly so.

 

The proposed buyers the fans should finance everything, through a professional source/legal/accountants, the fans elect a board of say 6, with the professional overseer having a casting vote.

 

It isn't rocket science, but I don't think it will ever happen....to many people want to hold onto their little bit of perceived power.

[Frankie 8,552]

WDB had a go at the RFC Board, not just SDM. The Captain of Industry then came out all guns blazing to attack us without addressing any of the issues raised. It was made clear that we continued to back the team 100% and many may have seen it as an attack on the Club rather than those running it. Whilst we did attract some new members, I can't say how many people it alienated.

 

The vast majority of the area of concerns you listed were/are the responsibility of the then chairman/owner so, rightly or wrongly, the campaign was always going to be considered as an anti-SDM protest. Plenty of critics of the campaign were also unsure how you could say you backed the team/manager 100% when a few of the items listed directly criticised them.

 

Now, I doubt many Rangers fans would have disagreed with the overall 'WDB' sentiment in January 2009. Unfortunately, the way the Trust carried out the campaign was flawed, divisive and has arguably had little impact on either the club or the Trust itself.

 

Of course SDM carries the can for the various mistakes and club problems of the last decade. More and more people are becoming aware of that naturally as our continuing financial issues become more and more prevalent.

 

The best way for the Trust to expedite that situation, while keeping their own reputation intact positively, was to work with the other fan groups on a more constructive way of raising awareness. Yet, during that time, the Trust not only just ignored such methods (e.g. the STS project) despite being invited to take part but poked fun at them. I've still not had a satisfactory answer to why that happened from those still in charge of your organisation.

 

In 2007, I remember the Trust having a similar (but with a bit less depth) project which, although received well by the club, also unfortunately had minimal impact. Three years later, it still hasn't been updated, improved or refined to show Rangers supporters clearly where the club is failing.

 

In my mind, working to do that via the professional consultation of its members, the wider fan-base and even non-Rangers supporters would have been the best way to offer constructive (though no less strong) criticism of the club. It arguably still is and it would certainly clearly show how the board/SDM have ignored good advice. Moreover, offering this at the same time as an opportunity to buy into a membership scheme by way of raising funds for the club and thus increased supporter influence would represent a strong strategy than a 'campaign' of sound-bites followed up by, well, next to nothing.

 

This criticism isn't just aimed at the Trust; after all the Assembly is equally culpable of impotence and a lack of focus but if we're to find proper representation several years down the line of both organisations being founded, we really need a change of direction and substantial improvement from those in charge. Unity and leadership has never been more necessary but despite almost a year of uncertainty at our club, there is nothing for our fans to buy into (literally!)....

 

This has been oft promised but as yet has not been forthcoming. I'm being genuine when I say I hope it will happen but I'm not confident until we see those who have failed step aside to give others a chance to deliver.

 

That may be harsh and I fully appreciate it doesn't apply to every supporters rep but there's no room for sentiment during a time of opportunity.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Frankie

[chilledbear 16]

I'm sorry, but the WDB banner was awfull. It looked to me like some school kid greeting in the playground, the sentiments may be ok, but banners don't always work.

The Trust also have the problem of being associated with protests, rightly or wrongly. Many Supporters they would have to target, are against this type of behaviour.

 

Also as wabash says, it may be time to involve professionals.

[Frankie 8,552]

I'm sorry, but the WDB banner was awfull. It looked to me like some school kid greeting in the playground, the sentiments may be ok, but banners don't always work.

The Trust also have the problem of being associated with protests, rightly or wrongly. Many Supporters they would have to target, are against this type of behaviour.

 

Also as wabash says, it may be time to involve professionals.

 

I think the banner(s) were a good example of a poorly thought out campaign.

 

Not everyone is aware of the Trust website or the message they were trying to convey. As such, that would immediately isolate them from a large part of the fanbase for aiming strong criticism without up-to-date and well-researched suggestions on how the club could improve.

 

Although I agreed with the more recent protests against the bank, again the choice of message and the way it was carried out was arguably flawed resulting in more confusion as opposed to alternatives.