The Failure of the Fans Groups

[Frankie 8,187]

Easy enough to get an independent accountant or lawyer to look after it.

 

However I'm sure this isn't a million miles away from something that the Trust have been looking at over the past 6 months, and is also similar to other schemes that were not fully pursued.

 

Yes, so there must be a reason why such schemes are unable to progress much further than the conception stage.

 

Cost, administration, neutrality, credibility and potential take-up must all be the main factors. But surely, none of these are insurmountable?

 

IIRC, even the club have looked tentatively at member schemes so surely this is a chance for all fan groups so put their ideas together and approach the club formally.

[Frankie 8,187]

Just as a matter of order Mainflyer, if the board of the RST do resign, will your name be the first on the list to be part of the board who will have better ideas. Mostly the biggest bugles contain the most wind.

 

Much in the way I think MF has been a bit harsh on UCB, I think it's unfair to suggest that all critics must stand themselves if they're to be taken seriously. Similarly, the Trust struggle to attract new board members at the best of times so finding 20 new ones may not be as easy as it sounds

 

As enigmablue showed us the other day, representing supporters isn't a task that should be taken lightly. It takes time, patience, money and hard work which doesn't always end up in tangible results.

 

By the same token though, nobody is forced to volunteer, it's good fun, hugely interesting and occasionally results can be achieved to be proud of.

 

In many ways, these organisations are also as good (or as bad) as the membership allow. So, while my criticisms in the original post are aimed at the serving board members (past and present), the rank and file (past and present) are hardly all innocent either...

[maineflyer 0]

Just as a matter of order Mainflyer, if the board of the RST do resign, will your name be the first on the list to be part of the board who will have better ideas. Mostly the biggest bugles contain the most wind.

 

Why? Would you see that as important? Isn't it enough to deal with the problem at hand without worrying about what's beyond it?

 

Ot do you think it we shouldn't have a view unless we've already thrown our hat in the ring?

[maineflyer 0]

Jeezo MF, that's almost a constructive post.:spl:

 

You might be surprised how much of it there is around if you'd lift your head and look.

Edited June 22, 2010 by maineflyer

[boss 0]

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

 

Did that alienate more people than it did attract members?

 

Don't introduce logic and facts into the discussion. That'll only confuse things.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

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.

[Frankie 8,187]

Yeah, people definitely need a model to buy into.

 

We just won't throw our money away so we'd need to know where it was going, who was responsible for it and what it bought us in terms of increased influence.

 

To be clear, I don't think an ownership proposal per se is likely to be successful but I think a membership scheme would be on the first step to that in the longer term.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

I think the trust needs to decide what it is, publish it and stick to it. It was a vehicle for fan representation, then a vehicle for fan concerns (WDB etc) and now for a supporter lead buy-out. By by and large reacting to situations rather than working to a set mandate it looks from the outside like people are trying to do everything and so managing very little. An example would be David Edgar; the guy is very good in the media but he from time to time had been asked to comment and debate transfers, finances, takeover news, the chairman, the manager, the support and opposition matters. The trust actually represents very very few Rangers fans so it would, in my mind, be far more sensible and piss off far fewer people if the trust decided what it was and stuck to it instead of answering questions on any subject and purporting to represent 'the fans'.

 

A decision today for the trust to be a fan representation/supporter buy-out organisation would help it immeasurably in my opinion. It would allow people to concentrate on one thing without getting side-tracked on umpteen various side issues. It would remove the 'he doesnt speak for me' attitude amongst the detractors and it would let the wider support see a proffesional and focused group with set aims and goals worthy of support. Perhps Edgar stepping down would be a great chance to rebrand?

 

I would also enforce a rule for prominant RST members having to use alias's on FF and other boards. With the best will in the world people do and always will confuse personal opinion for trust policy if they see several trust members posting identical views. It would be a pain in the baws to have to create new monikers but there is absolutely no way around the problem and if the well known names are only used to post trust policy or tow the party line and an alias for personal views, an awful lot of problems will be avoided. I know full well that people shouldnt confuse personal musings for trust policy but they always have and they always will. The trust cannot complain about that if it wants to ignore the fact it is a reality.

[maineflyer 0]

I think the trust needs to decide what it is, publish it and stick to it. It was a vehicle for fan representation, then a vehicle for fan concerns (WDB etc) and now for a supporter lead buy-out. By by and large reacting to situations rather than working to a set mandate it looks from the outside like people are trying to do everything and so managing very little. An example would be David Edgar; the guy is very good in the media but he from time to time had been asked to comment and debate transfers, finances, takeover news, the chairman, the manager, the support and opposition matters. The trust actually represents very very few Rangers fans so it would, in my mind, be far more sensible and piss off far fewer people if the trust decided what it was and stuck to it instead of answering questions on any subject and purporting to represent 'the fans'.

 

A decision today for the trust to be a fan representation/supporter buy-out organisation would help it immeasurably in my opinion. It would allow people to concentrate on one thing without getting side-tracked on umpteen various side issues. It would remove the 'he doesnt speak for me' attitude amongst the detractors and it would let the wider support see a proffesional and focused group with set aims and goals worthy of support. Perhps Edgar stepping down would be a great chance to rebrand?

 

I would also enforce a rule for prominant RST members having to use alias's on FF and other boards. With the best will in the world people do and always will confuse personal opinion for trust policy if they see several trust members posting identical views. It would be a pain in the baws to have to create new monikers but there is absolutely no way around the problem and if the well known names are only used to post trust policy or tow the party line and an alias for personal views, an awful lot of problems will be avoided. I know full well that people shouldnt confuse personal musings for trust policy but they always have and they always will. The trust cannot complain about that if it wants to ignore the fact it is a reality.

 

Above all else, the Trust needs to acknowledge that it should have no opinions, take no action and evolve no policy other than those that derive from its membership. The Trust in itself is nothing, which is fundamentally why it has been singularly ineffective whatever guise it has tried to adopt. The Trust can only address this by starting again, they absolutely cannot progress dragging their baggage behind them.

 

There needs to be an opening of doors, a transparency of action and it is essential that there is a truly independent platform, divorced totally from FF, the RSA or any other body. The Trust must be the Trust, the whole Trust and nothing but the Trust. It must exist only for it's membership, not for itself ... to acquire its member's views, needs, aspirations ... to evolve policy and strategy that receive where possible the sanction of the members. The Trust should be everything to every supporter but above all it should be trusted and earn the confidence of its members and non-members alike.

 

Today we have a joke, a failure, going backwards. It disappoints me hugely that those in the best position to see this are the ones who want to do most to sustain it. You don't plan the future on a fans forum but ffs let's at least admit we should be doing massively better.

[Frankie 8,187]

I think the trust needs to decide what it is, publish it and stick to it. It was a vehicle for fan representation, then a vehicle for fan concerns (WDB etc) and now for a supporter lead buy-out. By by and large reacting to situations rather than working to a set mandate it looks from the outside like people are trying to do everything and so managing very little. An example would be David Edgar; the guy is very good in the media but he from time to time had been asked to comment and debate transfers, finances, takeover news, the chairman, the manager, the support and opposition matters. The trust actually represents very very few Rangers fans so it would, in my mind, be far more sensible and piss off far fewer people if the trust decided what it was and stuck to it instead of answering questions on any subject and purporting to represent 'the fans'.

 

A decision today for the trust to be a fan representation/supporter buy-out organisation would help it immeasurably in my opinion. It would allow people to concentrate on one thing without getting side-tracked on umpteen various side issues. It would remove the 'he doesnt speak for me' attitude amongst the detractors and it would let the wider support see a proffesional and focused group with set aims and goals worthy of support. Perhps Edgar stepping down would be a great chance to rebrand?

 

I would also enforce a rule for prominant RST members having to use alias's on FF and other boards. With the best will in the world people do and always will confuse personal opinion for trust policy if they see several trust members posting identical views. It would be a pain in the baws to have to create new monikers but there is absolutely no way around the problem and if the well known names are only used to post trust policy or tow the party line and an alias for personal views, an awful lot of problems will be avoided. I know full well that people shouldnt confuse personal musings for trust policy but they always have and they always will. The trust cannot complain about that if it wants to ignore the fact it is a reality.

 

A few relevant points in that post which are worthy of comment.

 

1. I agree the Trust needs to examine its aims and constitution to see if it can either reduce or redefine its commitments to its members. While the support do need a vocal representative group, it is difficult to see how the Trust can retain an interest in every single issue which also increases its credibility in terms of its core aims. For example, many fans are hugely interested in the media debate. Yet, it could be argued that is nothing to do with the Trust aims per se - even although that aspect has arguably attracted most members/interest/publicity. Ultimately though this has resulted in estranged relations with the club and a definite lack of focus on representation per se.

 

2. The loss of David Edgar will be a defining moment for the RST. By and large he's done a fine job under unenviable circumstances. His colleagues lack his charisma so while any controversy may decline sans-Edgar, as will the effectiveness of the message. Therefore, this could be a chance for the Trust to regain focus, stay within its limits and remove itself from the firing line.

 

3. I'm not sure how you get round such a phenomenon. A Trust forum would be the correct route IMO but it would have to be better administrated than the poor Assembly version. The problem with not doing that is people will know that the opinions they read on places like FF especially are from senior members so aliases are soon divulged/guessed. They will also know these personal opinions will be used to formulate policy - perhaps not decide it but the opinion will be brought to the committee room. As such saying a post is personal opinion isn't a 'catch-all' get out clause; even if sometimes it is relevant to say so.

 

All in all, I just think the Trust just have to be more professional and more active at the same time. Reading some board members' posts on FF is quite embarrassing on occasion and does nothing for their reputation in terms of leadership, unity, PR and action. That is especially valid when one realises there is hardly anywhere else for members and non-members alike to go for Trust information. FF is an important recruiting tool for the Trust and an important source of information for every Rangers fan. Unfortunately, it has got to the stage where their close involvement to FF is holding the RST back. I don't think that can be denied; despite the best efforts of some who resort to lies, defamation and subterfuge to deflect from that very obvious failing.

 

Until the majority of the Trust board who surely would acknowledge that take action to address it, any constructive projects that people would like to participate in are arguably doomed to failure.