Fan ownership????

[caseyjones 0]

I know certain posters are against the Trust on here, but I would like to know what current members think.

 

Certainly something has to be done.

 

I joined at the beginning amid all the fanfare and big pledges. I never renewed due to there being little to resemble what was planned and promised. This was down to a lot more than just one man. There were, and still are, others bitching and itching to gain power for themselves/groups.

[GovanAllan 0]

I'm a member paid the lifetime membership but never felt the need to get involved with the internal politics I've no time for all that crap.

[caseyjones 0]

I'm an ex member and still get the e-mails.

 

It shouldn't really matter about Forums, and I think that is one of the failings.

 

I agree that the forums should not be having allotted representatives within the various committees which sprout up every so often. We're all supposed to support the same team.

[GovanAllan 0]

I agree that the forums should not be having allotted representatives within the various committees which sprout up every so often. We're all supposed to support the same team.

 

They remind me of being back in the playground arguing who has the hardest big brother or Dad, wouldn't surprise me if they get the tape measure out now and again.

[chilledbear 16]

When I was a member for two years I received about 2 emails...

 

Not sure what you mean about the forums, could you elaborate? Cheers!

 

Don't know for certain, but I would think the vast majority of RST members are posters on Forums, one in particular.

 

If the RST want to spread the membership [there was a drive at one time aimed at Supporter Clubs] they should take a step back from Forums and deal directly with members, news letters etc.

 

I know it is dificult with cost and of course all are volunteers.

 

I would like to see a successful Trust, but this one needs to take a hard look at itself.

[plgsarmy 111]

Are most of the ex-members on here? I'm one - although I was never enamoured with it at any point. I never really felt like a member at all with the only thing to remind me was my one share which brings me the AGM details and accounts info.

 

I would like a fans group that I can actually engage with and feel part of. The best I've found is Gersnet. Perhaps you have to be on FF to get the same kind of involvement with the Trust but I've no interest in that site.

 

Calscot, I'm obviously going to defend the organisation of which I am a member, you may agree with me or not.

1) Gersnet, or any other forum, is not a fan's group. Forums (or should it be fora?) are predominently faceless people who only have to give an e-mail and a moniker to join. With the RST. I could give you the name and addresses of all our members (I won't).

2) I see the RST a bit like a political party. There are people who join as members and there are many others who support a party without being a member. I'm also aware there are others who think they are a waste of space.

3) I don't believe that the majority of people over the years have joined the RST because they believe in fan ownership. At the beginning we were perceived as an organisation who was going to stand up to SDM and many fans didn't like that. We were then seen by some as sucking up to SDM and others didn't like that. It's a bit unfortunate but our membership seems to rise when there is trouble or a lack of success at the club.

4) We are the only group (as far as I can see) that any supporter can join and anyone can stand for election to the Board and have a say in shaping how we operate.

5) Our visibility and being able to engage with supporters has increased dramatically with the popularity of Facebook and Twitter.

6) We have had a policy for several years now that statements are first e-mailed to members, then posted on our site. Only then do other sites pick these up or not in some cases. We have over the years tried to go on a variety of websites but with some frankly there is no point.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

There is one worldwide Rangers supporters umbrella already in place. The Rangers Worldwide Alliance (better known as the Rangers Supporters Assembly) incorporates RSC's from all over the world, with reps from each area getting directly involved with the board of the club via regular meetings.

 

The oldest, and up until a decade ago, the only Rangers Supporters group was the Association. The organisers of the famous Rangers Rally's held annually for years and years. However nowadays they really only bother about away tickets for member RSC's. Well run and organised, but they dont get involved in any politics or controversy.

 

The RST was set up 9 years ago as a Direct result of the meltdown Murray had taken us into after his failed Advocaat dream had left us virtually bankrupt and turned us overnight into a selling club with no ambition, which we have been ever since if we are honest. The RST was originally set up due to the hurt and anger of fans to the way Murray had run the club into the ground since 1998, and tried to make him more accountable to the fans. After a good start and paying membership numbers up at around the 5000 mark, things began to go wrong with internal wranglings and power struggles taking over from the good work which had been done under the initial chairmans watch. If truth be told it hasnt been too successful since, but is still a very vocal and ambitious vehicle for its (too few) members.

 

The point im working towards however is that in the last year or so the 3 organisations have been working together more and more and are pretty much on the same page on all issues concerning the club these days. They still have their own autonomy and meetings, still do their own projects, but on the big subjects are pretty much working as one.

 

So whether you support any of the 3 groups, you are really getting the same united voice on the big issues. The fighting and posturing between them seems to me to be coming from the supporters/opponents of the groups and the various forums they speak on anonymously, not the boards of the groups themselves.

 

With this being the case, I can see no reason for the creation of a new all-encompassing Rangers fans organisation, as it would end up being run by the same people who have stepped forward and given many many hours of their own free time. With their being 3 different groups, if there were Ranges fans out there who wanted to get involved properly, not just on an internet message board from their work or home, they have had many chances over several years to join one of the groups, who are not being inundated with offers of help, and try to make a difference themselves. It appears that while a lot of us are happy to talk the talk, not many of us have the available time or inclination to walk the walk.

[calscot 0]

Calscot, I'm obviously going to defend the organisation of which I am a member, you may agree with me or not.

 

I don't quite see what you're trying to achieve with this reply. I say my own experience with the trust was not to my expectations with regards to involvement and communications and you come in defending the trust but metaphorically beat me about the head about it... A bit ironic.

 

 

Calscot, I'm obviously going to defend the organisation of which I am a member, you may agree with me or not.

1) Gersnet, or any other forum, is not a fan's group. Forums (or should it be fora?) are predominently faceless people who only have to give an e-mail and a moniker to join. With the RST. I could give you the name and addresses of all our members (I won't).

 

You may be technically correct using whatever metrics you want about what makes up a fans' group - but emotionally I see this forum as far more of a fans' group than I did with the trust. Even though I disagree with a lot on here, Gersnet represents my feelings about Rangers far more than the trust and IMHO has achieved more positive initiatives as well. Maybe the trust need to think more about the hearts and minds of the supporters. Also, you may see forums as trivial but it does allow a meeting place, even if virtual, for people to engage about the same thing. The trust has that aspect missing.

 

2) I see the RST a bit like a political party. There are people who join as members and there are many others who support a party without being a member. I'm also aware there are others who think they are a waste of space.

 

I don't quite see the parallel as in any political party you can easily become involved at local level. You will get to know some movers and shakers personally and will be largely welcomed and valued. I don't see that with the trust. But the analogy doesn't quite work as a political party is necessarily a subset of the population with other parties representing other groups with other agendas. The trust should be more of an umbrella organisation that caters for a wide range of political beliefs.

 

3) I don't believe that the majority of people over the years have joined the RST because they believe in fan ownership. At the beginning we were perceived as an organisation who was going to stand up to SDM and many fans didn't like that. We were then seen by some as sucking up to SDM and others didn't like that. It's a bit unfortunate but our membership seems to rise when there is trouble or a lack of success at the club.

 

I don't see how this applies to me except that I saw the trust as an organisation that could represent the fans' stake holding in the club. I don't think it succeeded and the impression I get from the leadership is not something I'm comfortable with. I may have it all wrong but the RST have not handled multiple scandals at all well in my opinion.

 

4) We are the only group (as far as I can see) that any supporter can join and anyone can stand for election to the Board and have a say in shaping how we operate.

 

Firstly, that may be true but I receive no impression of how to be involved at all - including just voting. Communication was almost non-existent and the website sparse. That may have changed but that doesn't change my experience. Secondly, the number of resignations from the board and the machinations that go with it don't make it an attractive proposition.

 

5) Our visibility and being able to engage with supporters has increased dramatically with the popularity of Facebook and Twitter.

 

I don't really do Facebook and Twitter - I embrace most modern technology but can't see how Facebook enhances many people's lives and twitter is only interesting when someone points out the wheat from the chaff. They might be useful tools in expanding the message to some of the masses but it's not going to appeal to everyone.

 

6) We have had a policy for several years now that statements are first e-mailed to members, then posted on our site. Only then do other sites pick these up or not in some cases. We have over the years tried to go on a variety of websites but with some frankly there is no point.

 

As I'm no longer a member I don't get the emails and don't check the site.

 

RST may have improved many aspects of its communication since I left but instead of convincing me to rejoin somehow, you've come across as a bit hostile which just adds to my impression of the trust.

Edited April 19, 2012 by calscot

[calscot 0]

It appears that while a lot of us are happy to talk the talk, not many of us have the available time or inclination to walk the walk.

 

But then Billy Connolly once said, "The mere fact of wanting to be a politician should disqualify someone from becoming one." That sums up the feelings of the RST board for me. There seems to be too many ambitious politicians and not enough "helpers".

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

But then Billy Connolly once said, "The mere fact of wanting to be a politician should disqualify someone from becoming one." That sums up the feelings of the RST board for me. There seems to be too many ambitious politicians and not enough "helpers".

 

Oh how I laughed at Connolly with that one. He truly was at his best in that era and I have used that quote myself on numerous occasions since and I entirely agree with it. However with the RST board I actually think youve got that the wrong way around. There are too many of the board, past and present, who wanted to be a board member and help out, go to meetings, get the inside story etc, but not come up with policy, new ideas, or be proactive.