RST AGM Tomorrow

[maineflyer 0]

Having a couple of those attending the AGM give a summary of events, however sanitized, is interesting enough but the real issue is the one behind this latest split. If I pursue it I will be accused of orchestrating a campaign against the RST so I'll let it emerge in it's own time. Grubby little RST.

[Frank Hovis 0]

So am I right in saying that for the second time, key board members have resigned due to their disillusionment at the road the RST are taking?

[wabashcannonball 0]

So am I right in saying that for the second time, key board members have resigned due to their disillusionment at the road the RST are taking?

 

 

 

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtCittJyr0]YouTube - Talking Heads - "Road To Nowhere"[/ame]

[Frankie 8,150]

So am I right in saying that for the second time, key board members have resigned due to their disillusionment at the road the RST are taking?

 

No, I don't think that is the case here.

[plgsarmy 111]

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!

 

As for the AGM, a very brief summary would be;

 

35 in attendance.

Loss of �£10K in the year.

Membership income down.

Report done for a "high net worth" but unnamed investor that got leaked and the investor ran away.

Fundaraising events through the year lost money instead of raised money.

Loads of changes in the board again, with 8 new/re-elected board members.

Chairman resigned, personal/work commitments.

Secretary resigned, tried to make statement, was told not to.

Treasurer resigned, personal/work commitments.

 

It wasnt a very good year, and even the few of us left that support the concept of the vehicle of a Supporters Trust cannot hide or "spin" the fact that it is not looking good at the moment.

 

Hopefully, the new guys coming into it, coupled with the few good guys/gals already there, can start to make the necessary changes to take the Trust forward, but they have a long road ahead.

 

TB, a reasonable account but a couple of points to clarify. I disagree about the 'loads of changes in the Board again' comment. One third of the Board are required to stand down every year and seek re-election if they wish. We had two cooptees that were also seeking election. We only had one new person apply to join the Board and he was elected.

 

As has been pointed out, the Chairman indicated his intention to step down but it isn't clear whether or not he will remain on the Board. Both the Secretary and the Treasurer (me) have only stepped down from their positions but have not resigned from the Board. WE now have a CA on the board and it makes much more sense for her to be treasurer.

 

The Secretary was told that the questions were only about the Secretary's and Treasurer's reports and that he could speak later. He chose not to, why I don't know.

[plgsarmy 111]

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.

 

TB, KP had the document with him and said that anyone at the meeting could have a look at it. I'm not sure if anyone asked to see it. I'm not sure of the usefulness of publishing that particular document on the website as it was written on the basis that the funding was being underwritten and was very specific to this particular case. I'm afraid I don't understand the 'nudge nudge wink wink' comment but perhaps we could speak about that.

[Frankie 8,150]

plg:

 

Whilst I'm sure everyone thanks you for keeping the above AGM accounts balanced and accurate, I think it would be even more helpful if you addressed the variety of concerns throughout the posts.

 

I'm sure you agree that the immediate future of the Trust is perhaps amongst the toughest it has faced since inception. Reducing membership numbers (since April anyway), decreasing interest in the organisation, the loss of key board members, image perception issues that won't go away, board members who perpetuate mischief-making in spite of that, apathy in the wider support, alleged financial irregularities, unhappy key board members, non-existent club relationship, flawed outreach activities, loss-making functions, questionable interaction with membership, lack of publicity for key initiatives etc etc.

 

Some of these apparent problems are not new and yet the same prevarication is made for why improvement hasn't been found.

 

Unfortunately, for those of us genuinely interested in independent representation, it seems the Trust is floundering badly. What do the board intend to do to change the list of issues above?

[Frankie 8,150]

I should add that I think there have been some interesting changes/improvements to the Trust over the last year or so.

 

I'm told communication with members is varied and improved with a newly designed website which looks good and is accessible to all. Further, some of the outreach activities you do have (such as the Family Day and your charity work) are very good and well worthy of every fan's support. The Trust also has a positive relationship with the Assembly, the Association and FF.

 

I think that tells us there is talent and commitment to be built upon. To that end, it could be said that the Trust has two paths open to it.

 

1. Use the resignation of the chairman to start afresh and appoint a wholly neutral chair who is capable of being their own man/woman and is able to pull the organisation together to reach out to potential members (old and new alike) and show the Trust is a serious opportunity when it comes to achieving genuine supporters representation. Also appoint a new secretary, new media reps, new Assembly reps and new club liaisons. The existing ones have had their time and have failed. Be honest with yourselves.

 

2. Continue down a blind alley, refusing to communicate with people whose faces don't fit, allowing one or two people to dictate policy and struggle to achieve a credible reputation with those fans/figures who really matter.

 

I'm sure every fan (interested in the Trust or not) would find one of these options exciting, interesting and worthy of our attention.

[Bluedell 5,329]

TB, a reasonable account but a couple of points to clarify. I disagree about the 'loads of changes in the Board again' comment. One third of the Board are required to stand down every year and seek re-election if they wish. We had two cooptees that were also seeking election. We only had one new person apply to join the Board and he was elected.

 

 

I can't blame TB for being unclear as to what was happening given the speed that the re-elections went through and the whole process was unsatisfactory.

 

1. The 8 names were read out extremely quickly and I doubt anyone on the audience could repeat who was up for election/re-election.

 

2. There was no explanation of who the new board member was, as I pointed out at the time.

 

3. I believe that not giving the meeting the chance to vote on people individually is incorrect, despite the fact that the meeting voted to allow it.

 

4. The meeting was asked to vote if it was OK to allow the vote to cover all 8 people. This was passed. The voting then stopped at that point. My interpretation was that the vote was in respect of the method of voting only and there was never a vote actually electing/re-electing the people concerned, or did I miss something?

 

 

The Secretary was told that the questions were only about the Secretary's and Treasurer's reports and that he could speak later. He chose not to, why I don't know.

 

 

How did the chairman of the meeting know that the statement was not in relation to the reports of the Secretary and Treasurer?

 

Was he told that he could speak later? I didn't catch that, although it was difficult to hear everything that the chairman was saying at that point.

[Tannochsidebear 2,314]

TB, a reasonable account but a couple of points to clarify. I disagree about the 'loads of changes in the Board again' comment. One third of the Board are required to stand down every year and seek re-election if they wish. We had two cooptees that were also seeking election. We only had one new person apply to join the Board and he was elected.

 

As has been pointed out, the Chairman indicated his intention to step down but it isn't clear whether or not he will remain on the Board. Both the Secretary and the Treasurer (me) have only stepped down from their positions but have not resigned from the Board. WE now have a CA on the board and it makes much more sense for her to be treasurer.

 

The Secretary was told that the questions were only about the Secretary's and Treasurer's reports and that he could speak later. He chose not to, why I don't know.

 

plg, my comment on loads of changes was in relation to the 8 elected members to the board. As BD has related to, the speed at which this was done, coupled with the fact that looking at the accounts and seeing dates and resigned/appointed beside a lot of the names there, was where I got my info from. As you correctly state (and I had forgotten) some board members have to retire by rotation, and I accept that with these people included the true figure is not as large as I may have made out. An honest mistake i'm sure you will accept, but given the poor fashion in which this was done by the acting chair (no doubt nervous i'm sure and his first go at it) you will see how I came to this conclusion.

 

The former Secretary was not told he could make the statement later.

 

The parting comment I heard from your new Chairman was "hopefully he resigns from the board too". Not really a sign of board unity, that.

 

I appreciate your intentions and I know you have worked long and hard for a number of years on the board, and as you say it makes sense to pass on the Treasurer's role to the CA.