The Failure of the Fans Groups

[wabashcannonball 0]

The simple solution is that there is no solution, until and maybe not even then, Minty departs.

Anyone who believes that a "Rangers minded" sugar daddy is going to appear and underwrite a loss making venture/business that is Rangers, to facilitate fan ownership/involvement, would be as well wishing for the sugar plum fairy.

 

Simply the fans will either do it or they won't, the will to do it must first be gauged, or consigned to history.

[Frankie 8,151]

The simple solution is that there is no solution, until and maybe not even then, Minty departs.

Anyone who believes that a "Rangers minded" sugar daddy is going to appear and underwrite a loss making venture/business that is Rangers, to facilitate fan ownership/involvement, would be as well wishing for the sugar plum fairy.

 

Simply the fans will either do it or they won't, the will to do it must first be gauged, or consigned to history.

 

I agree with most of that which is why we should be taking the chance to explore such opportunities now while the club is being successful on the pitch.

 

If the Trust had Jim McColl seriously interested then their ideas must have been interesting ones.

 

I also know similar ventures have been explored in the past but for one reason or another have not been followed through. I'm sure timing was one reason so while the appetite/possibility for fan ownership may be minimal, I'd have thought a step onto the ladder of that is possible - increasing our say and finance into the club at the same time.

[pete 2,499]

To be honest i think the only way a united supporters group could happen is if the club run it themselves. It is indeed strange that they run a young supporters club but just seem to throw this good initiative out the window when people become adults.

I still think a package of discounts on Rangers TV, season tickets, one game tickets and on strips and clothes at stores would be a huge attraction for people to join the club and help sales on the above products.

This would give people the idea that they are supporting their club but also getting something back in return.

Obviously one of the adders in the grass would have to be the knowledge that MIH or the bank can not put claim to any of the membership money.

I know this would not be as easy as it sounds but i really think it could work and if it works for young supporters why would it not work for adults who have their own financial means?

[rbr 1,247]

While we here may have twigged that the king has no clothes on, many from what I read in other places think he is draped in all his finery, I would go as far as to say that those of us who have sussed Minty are in a minority.

 

I will start this by stating I am not trying to be a smartarse ok , but when you state how you have sussed Minty , what exactly do you mean , as all you have ever posted is general assumptions that have at the moment been proved correct . So what exactly is your position on Murray and what is it you have sussed that everyone else has missed .

 

Even the great Muir lovers on RM are starting to change their tunes , but I would accept the anti Murray supporters are definetly in the minority

[maineflyer 0]

I will start this by stating I am not trying to be a smartarse ok , but when you state how you have sussed Minty , what exactly do you mean , as all you have ever posted is general assumptions that have at the moment been proved correct . So what exactly is your position on Murray and what is it you have sussed that everyone else has missed .

 

Even the great Muir lovers on RM are starting to change their tunes , but I would accept the anti Murray supporters are definetly in the minority

By definition, every change starts with a minority..... and the last people to change are always the least perceptive.

[rbr 1,247]

By definition, every change starts with a minority..... and the last people to change are always the least perceptive.

 

Definetly , but what realy pisses me off big time are the " I told you so brigade" and I am not pointing the finger at any one on here , especially wabash , but posters on other sites who continualy posted about how Muir was great and we weren't really up for sale ,it's all a big con , have went and turned 180 degrees and now we are still for sale and the deal only stalled due to the funding not being in place "YET" , now is this coming from MUIR asthe majority if not all their previous stuff clearly was . Also why no announcement to the LSE , that was meant to happen as well , yet silence .

 

 

More smoke and mirrors , or just wind and pish .

[Union City Blue 0]

I don't blame anyone for being annoyed when criticised. I don't like it myself and it really is difficult to accept being wrong sometimes. I also do understand when I talk about failure, it will put people on the defensive which is why I deliberately mentioned my part in said problems.

 

However, there must come a stage when you realise the genuine people amongst the organisations mentioned are being undermined by the reaction to criticism and unacceptable behaviour of others.

 

Obviously, I don't think it is fair to blame individuals for a problem that, as a support, we all contribute to but when boss talks about elephants in the room, he's probably right unfortunately. I think we all know that - other than a few obstinate people; the ones who won't accept their part in said failure.

 

With regard to the RST, Maineflyer talks about a complete overhaul of the board via resignations. Sure, that is perhaps overly dramatic - after all not everyone is failing I'm sure - but surely it is difficult to continually justify board appointments, re-elections and ongoing policy on such a low turnout/contribution/consultation of the membership?

 

Before anyone accuses me of being a hypocrite, I appreciate these same representative issues were present when I served; of which I was attempting to address in part shortly before I resigned. The more serious challenges I was less able to answer and two years down the line they still exist.

 

So when you talk about the absorption of constructive criticism, what kind of ways do you think the Trust (and Assembly by logical extension) could improve their constitution in order to make them more immediately representative?

 

Both organisations talk about being democratic and initially at least they are as such. However, both organisations have minimal 'ordinary' member participation which suggests inherent problems.

 

As such, while MF may well have a shotgun approach, the point he's making isn't something that should be swatted away as no-one should be wearing a bullet-proof vest here.

 

Frankie.

 

I can't really comment on the Assembly's constitutional position without first discussing it with the guys in the Assembly. All I can say is that from where I'm sitting I believe it is fundamentally and inherently subservient, and therefore inadaquate.

 

The RST's constitution is not a major issue in my eyes so I'd like to ask what's behind the question?

 

In terms of member participation, the biggest obstacle is time and resources but there is a genuine will (backed by initiatives) to enable people to become more involved, as plgsarmy has indicated by use of examples. The bigger issue for me though, is getting into the mainstream with a credible, deliverable package. That's where I'm personally focussed right now but I have to say the environment is complex and it's going to be very challenging to piece all the necessary building-blocks together. It simply has to be done though, there is no other option.

 

If mr. flyer wants a better quality of response he only has to stop being overly dramatic and rude. But he already knows that.

[maineflyer 0]

Frankie.

 

I can't really comment on the Assembly's constitutional position without first discussing it with the guys in the Assembly. All I can say is that from where I'm sitting I believe it is fundamentally and inherently subservient, and therefore inadaquate.

 

The RST's constitution is not a major issue in my eyes so I'd like to ask what's behind the question?

 

In terms of member participation, the biggest obstacle is time and resources but there is a genuine will (backed by initiatives) to enable people to become more involved, as plgsarmy has indicated by use of examples. The bigger issue for me though, is getting into the mainstream with a credible, deliverable package. That's where I'm personally focussed right now but I have to say the environment is complex and it's going to be very challenging to piece all the necessary building-blocks together. It simply has to be done though, there is no other option.

 

If mr. flyer wants a better quality of response he only has to stop being overly dramatic and rude. But he already knows that.

Are you seriously saying that, as a member of the RST board (albeit an unelected one), that you choose to put your own sensitivities ahead of your willingness to offer a meaningful response when confronted with your own failure? Go dry your eyes, big shot.

 

The only thing wrong with supporter representation is the willingness of representatives to deal with there own lack of achievement. I realise it's not easy to take but, please, every day I listen to this put 'Rangers First' nonsense from people who plainly are prepared to do nothing of the sort. Trying is always commendable but refusing to acknowledge a lack of achievement is unforgivable and nothing characterises the RST as much as its failure to achieve, on any level.

 

People ask why the club and the support are so fucked up - well in each case, look no further than those involved. Improvement can only come with fresh blood, root and branch change. And whether you like it or not UCB, you're part of the problem.

 

But hey, maybe you're just too busy being offended.

[Frankie 8,151]

Frankie.

 

I can't really comment on the Assembly's constitutional position without first discussing it with the guys in the Assembly. All I can say is that from where I'm sitting I believe it is fundamentally and inherently subservient, and therefore inadaquate.

 

The RST's constitution is not a major issue in my eyes so I'd like to ask what's behind the question?

 

In terms of member participation, the biggest obstacle is time and resources but there is a genuine will (backed by initiatives) to enable people to become more involved, as plgsarmy has indicated by use of examples. The bigger issue for me though, is getting into the mainstream with a credible, deliverable package. That's where I'm personally focussed right now but I have to say the environment is complex and it's going to be very challenging to piece all the necessary building-blocks together. It simply has to be done though, there is no other option.

 

If mr. flyer wants a better quality of response he only has to stop being overly dramatic and rude. But he already knows that.

 

I was just thinking aloud regarding MF's suggestion that board members are not elected properly. He's not the only one to suggest that over the years.

 

In addition to that, across the community Trust members (past and present) still complain about a lack of communication and involvement - i.e. other than AGMs they are not consulted enough and, given the poor attendance at these meetings, the board's mandate to make and carry forward policy is worthy of examination.

 

In other words, how can the board be more accountable to its members when problems arise? The suggestion of standing yourself is fair enough - given the correct backing - but I know just how difficult it can be to influence or change direction.

 

Like I say, these same issues existed when I served so they're not new and I'm not saying they're easy to fix (if required).

 

Of course people will say how can you change such matters with a membership who perhaps don't contribute enough anyway (even when asked) but apathy is arguably the biggest obstacle to a meaningful, large-scale participation and representative group.

 

I'm glad you're working on such a package but how do you intend to overcome the various issues that have blighted and continue to blight these organisations and their relationships with the wider support?

[Bluedell 5,343]

I can't really comment on the Assembly's constitutional position without first discussing it with the guys in the Assembly. All I can say is that from where I'm sitting I believe it is fundamentally and inherently subservient, and therefore inadaquate.

 

As the RST has been an integral member of the Assembly since its conception and remained a member then by failing to do anything about it, the RST are supporting its set up.

 

My view is that the RST should resign from the Assembly but I know it's not a view that has much support from the RST board.