Frankie 8,150 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Guys - I'd also prefer people didn't use terms like taigs, tarriers or the like on here. [/MOAN] Edited May 10, 2012 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guardian Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I said it before the emergence of the new bidders and I say it again now. The reason supporters groups should not be part of any bid is because it creates a conflict of interest and leaves them adrift if that bid fails. What are the RST going to do now ? Throw away their principles and find another stance with somebody else ? They are now left on the outside, marginalised and lacking any credibility whatsoever. Run properly they would have analysed the bids, commented on them giving their views but remained aloof. At the end of the day, new owners, if they are sensible, would have to engage with them anyway. Not only picking one to the exclusion of all others, and then actively demonstrating against the others was folly and has cost them dearly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Although it may have affected discussions with other bidders in the short-term, I'm sure any new owner will still be keen to talk with the RST going forward. Yes, I don't think it was a clever strategy to back one horse so to speak (or perhaps more accurately have board members actively oppose other bids) but any new owner is reliant on the goodwill of the fans and the Trust (and FF) are influential in that respect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guardian Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I was thinking more of the fans themselves rather than the owners. I've never been one for fans groups, partly because of all the different ones and the divisions between them. However I can see as they are useful for giving fans a voice. It would be a lot better if they all got together and formed the one Rangers fan group, which could have sub-sections off it. Unlikely to happen due to vested interests I expect. I can say though, if I was considering joining a supporters group, it would not be RST now, and I suspect a lot of others will feel the same. They have tainted their rep a bit with this when they didn't need to. That may fade with time but fans have long memories. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Don't usually post on RST threads for the reason that I've never been a member, but I'd like to know one or two things. On RM, Manticore used to post some manifesto type drivel written by MD all about how Rangers was a British, right wing, Protestant etc club and that lefty types who disagreed could jog on. Being a lefty type who disagreed I was therefore not very keen on his Mb or his RST, which is very definitely what it looks like from the outside. Seeing as the club is in crisis (crises?) and seeing as Frankie says above, that FF and the RST are (unbelievably to me) likely to be influential with new owners, whoever they may be, I feel a bit torn between getting involved with people I fundamentally disagree with and doing nothing while Rome, if you'll pardon the expression, burns. So can I ask: does the RST have a 'baggage' agenda? to give an eg, I'd sack the lad who was lifted for sectarian BoP last week if found guilty, since in the wake of the Lennon bombs we just can't have that sort o'thing around us. What would their stance be on that type of affair? Was it they, eg, who stuck the pointless 'to hell with the SNP' rhyme on the march banner? Being a card carrying member I could hardly walk behind that, it would be like going to an SNP meeting and marching behind a 'to a hell with The Rangers' banner! Are they overtly nationalistic, like the VBs? Is it really a bunch of puppets, all guided by the unseen hand of one individual? Hope no-one is offended by these questions but it's pretty hard to see through the fog. Edited May 10, 2012 by andy steel 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Andy: The RST were only part of the march, they didn't organise the banners for it. Not sure why those people mentioned SNP as that march arguably wasn't the place for it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Along with all the rest of the shite going on with the club, there is always the PR war, the banners were the equivalent of our Dunkirk in that battle. Ask the NARSA members what they think of "Yanks no thanks"? what does the bad publicity do to their standing in America. Someone should resign from the RST imo, if proven they where behind this stunt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djbroxybear 0 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Along with all the rest of the shite going on with the club, there is always the PR war, the banners were the equivalent of our Dunkirk in that battle. Ask the NARSA members what they think of "Yanks no thanks"? what does the bad publicity do to their standing in America. Someone should resign from the RST imo, if proven they where behind this stunt. Good point all our American fellow bears watching the game must have been bewildered by that banner an absolute disgrace imo and to our American players. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Don't usually post on RST threads for the reason that I've never been a member, but I'd like to know one or two things. On RM, Manticore used to post some manifesto type drivel written by MD all about how Rangers was a British, right wing, Protestant etc club and that lefty types who disagreed could jog on. Being a lefty type who disagreed I was therefore not very keen on his Mb or his RST, which is very definitely what it looks like from the outside. Seeing as the club is in crisis (crises?) and seeing as Frankie says above, that FF and the RST are (unbelievably to me) likely to be influential with new owners, whoever they may be, I feel a bit torn between getting involved with people I fundamentally disagree with and doing nothing while Rome, if you'll pardon the expression, burns. So can I ask: does the RST have a 'baggage' agenda? to give an eg, I'd sack the lad who was lifted for sectarian BoP last week if found guilty, since in the wake of the Lennon bombs we just can't have that sort o'thing around us. What would their stance be on that type of affair? Was it they, eg, who stuck the pointless 'to hell with the SNP' rhyme on the march banner? Being a card carrying member I could hardly walk behind that, it would be like going to an SNP meeting and marching behind a 'to a hell with The Rangers' banner! Are they overtly nationalistic, like the VBs? Is it really a bunch of puppets, all guided by the unseen hand of one individual? Hope no-one is offended by these questions but it's pretty hard to see through the fog. Some good points there. I have similar conflicts. I am a bluenose through and through but am uneasy with the stereotype that is purported - i.e. the right wing, unionist, royalist, loyalist, protestant, etc. My football, my religion and my politics are mutually exclusive. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 All the passion, commitment and loyalty that we are famous for and we are represented by a group with less than 2,000 members....it just doesn't add up. If this was a company loyalty scheme the guy who set it up would have been sacked long ago. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.