RST AGM Tomorrow

[Frankie 8,150]

Some observations ......

1. There is no shortage of people who support the idea of an effective RST. I'm definitely one of them.

2. "Elected" - who elected who in this cabal of dishonesty? Not the membership, that's for sure.

3. Surely you cannot believe for a single minute that the failure of the RST is down to anything but the rot that stinks at it's core, centred around one man and the laughable poodles gathered around him.

4. The "stock" of the RST is it's own making and might be better served by an organization the talks for itself rather than relying on comment in one forum or another.

5. Thirty-five in attendance eh? Well that's some impressive achievement, hardly worth renting the phone box for. But exactly what the king wanted ... no challenge, no waves, no questions ... FF can continue to be the voice of Rangers for another year.

 

How much appetite for embarrassing themselves and the name of Rangers does this RST have? You can talk all you like about "changes" or "taking the Trust forward" or "long road ahead" but you'd be better admitting the game is finally up. Stop hiding behind the idea and admit the gross failure of the project and the direct culpability of board members who failed to stand up to one man's greed. Enemy within - you know as well as I do who is the enemy within and he's currently serving on the RST board, surrounded by fools and naivety. The good guys are long gone.

 

Shame, shame on the lot of you.

 

I think a lot of people will concede Mark Dingwall has caused a lot of problems within the support.

 

While I'm not sure it is entirely fair to blame him alone for our representative failures, I'm surprised and disappointed he continues to refuse to realise his presence is counter-productive for the Trust. Quite simply, unless he stands aside, the organisation will continue to wither and die.

 

I'm sure people on the Trust board share that point of view but seem unable (or unwilling) to do a thing about it while the actual membership seem just as impotent (or disinterested) in why things are going wrong with their organisation. In that respect, we're all culpable.

 

Rangers fans lack a true leader to guide us through this mess. Perhaps a new Trust chair will help but they're on a hiding to nothing unless the organisation change their MO substantially.

[maineflyer 0]

A complaint about the accounts that was stifled from the chair, while a chairman clears the way for his own exit ... And the treasurer standing down. Settle back folks as Bearwood HopeLess and Ding Crosby bring you the Road to Ruin.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Thanks for the update also BD...

 

Facebook is not a credible alternative to a private forum for Trust members - as well as a public forum for those who are not members but interested in the debate.

 

I don't use facebook so it's difficult to comment, but I can't see why it would be an issue. One problem was the banning of members, but it's not a reason not to have it, in my opinion.

 

The failure of the existing board to publicise/highlight GerSave really is disgraceful. Sure the project hasn't been a huge success for a variety of reasons but I'm appalled at the lack of PR work for it. Especially when one considers the Arsenal Sharesave scheme launched last month.

 

They must have close to �£80K of funds for Gersave and they should be approaching the club asap to get it invested. Although they had an excuse not to push it too much over the past year or so, with the ownership situation in flux, I get the feeling that nothing much would have been done anyway had that not been the situation. Perhaps there was a missed opportunity.

[Frankie 8,150]

I don't use facebook so it's difficult to comment, but I can't see why it would be an issue. One problem was the banning of members, but it's not a reason not to have it, in my opinion.

 

They must have close to �£80K of funds for Gersave and they should be approaching the club asap to get it invested. Although they had an excuse not to push it too much over the past year or so, with the ownership situation in flux, I get the feeling that nothing much would have been done anyway had that not been the situation. Perhaps there was a missed opportunity.

 

Facebook is absolutely fine to have as an extension to the existing website. It is not a serious substitute for a forum and should not be considered as such.

 

I don't doubt the holding back of any GerSave monies is/was to gain leverage with any potential buyers. It is the lack of publicity the scheme has had that has surprised me. Arsenal received huge publicity for their new scheme and I read in many places (including the SD mailing list) that it was the first such scheme. Now, I'm not aware of the nuances of their project but I doubt that is true so the RST should have piggybacked onto this subject as much as possible. Yet we heard nothing.

 

The lack of drive and support for GerSave is puzzling consider how important it is to the Trust aims. Add in their non-existent efforts in other fields such as pressuring the club into board representation and their inconsistent outreach methods then I'm not surprised the current chair is stepping down.

[Tannochsidebear 2,314]

Thanks to BD for a fuller round-up than I could either remember or had time for, and 1 of the points he mentioned that i'd forgotten about was a point I raised myself!!

 

I was deeply disappointed with the facebook answer.

I was deeply disappointed that Alan Harris's statement was not read out, although obviously he was partly to blame for that himself by leaving when his initial attempt to make his statement was denied, instead of waiting for AOB.

 

I was also disappointed to note that there is a lack of desire to publish and create debate on their work on the blueprint they were asked to create for the "Mr Big". I understand some of this was leaked to the press when it was supposed to be confidential, but just to shelf it and say that it will keep in case some other "Mr Big" comes along is poor showing IMO. This should have been published on their website and perhaps it might have created some debate. We had heard that they were working on it for long enough, but for the membership to be denied the chance to read and discuss it is wrong.

 

Yes, we have to trust the board to do the right thing, and they cant tell the memebrship everything, but they cannot then wonder why Rangers fans, members and non-members alike, think they have done nothing all year when all their work goes into the confidential drawer, not to be discussed or shared with even their own members at their own AGM. The board's secrecy and playing with words with their own membership in a private meeting with a nudge nudge wink wink was pathetic.

 

It seems that as long as they support some good charities and get some soundbites on tv and radio, all is well.

 

But all is not well.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I was also disappointed to note that there is a lack of desire to publish and create debate on their work on the blueprint they were asked to create for the "Mr Big". I understand some of this was leaked to the press when it was supposed to be confidential, but just to shelf it and say that it will keep in case some other "Mr Big" comes along is poor showing IMO. This should have been published on their website and perhaps it might have created some debate. We had heard that they were working on it for long enough, but for the membership to be denied the chance to read and discuss it is wrong.

 

 

I'd agree with that. I'm sure a lot of constructive advice could be given to improve the document even further.

[Frankie 8,150]

Well said TB...

 

Sure on occasion some matters have to be kept private in the short-term but when it comes to the AGM then I'm surprised some issues seem to be off the radar. Especially when it comes to failed initiatives (no matter how unlucky they came with McColl) which could be improved via open debate with their membership.

 

The Trust criticise the club for secrecy and underhand dealings yet they seem guilty of same. Moreover, they (or some board members) are equally dismissive of the support at large.

 

They have failed in their remit and instead of re-electing themselves back onto the board, they should do the decent thing and fall on their sword.

[wabashcannonball 0]

The bottom line is the rst is a waste of space and time, we have to many conflicting interests in our support, time for one body with all having a voice and a meaningful vote..

[Frankie 8,150]

The bottom line is the rst is a waste of space and time, we have to many conflicting interests in our support, time for one body with all having a voice and a meaningful vote..

 

Many fans would prefer such a vehicle but it doesn't exist as it stands while others would actively oppose it if it was mooted.

 

The last year or so has seen daily debate about the problems within the direction and security of the club. Yet, we have nothing to go on other than the odd snippet in the papers or when the club choose to tap their nose while taking our money out of our pockets at the same time.

 

The Trust are contributing to this problem instead of solving it.

 

Never has there been a better time for the fans to force the issue and what do we have? Next to nothing.

[Frankie 8,150]

No threads about the AGM on FF or RM either. Surely not an indication that the stock of the RST has fallen to a level where they are not even talked about on any of the main forums anymore!

 

 

They're not talked about because no Trust board member takes the time to take part in these places other than FF. And even on there, debate is minimal because any dissenting voices are soon ridiculed by people with a less than constructive approach themselves.

 

Sure we have one or two that post here on occasion to rebut the odd erroneous claim but there is a lack of meaningful debate right across the community because they don't actively seek it.

 

We can only hope this is because they are working hard on a project that needs to be kept completely private to ensure its success. But that doesn't explain the ignorance showed by their chair and senior board members when communication is attempted in the other direction.