Rangers Unite Statement

[Fury 0]

I'm not going to get into a slanging match with RU. I know they have people involved who are genuine in their wish to see things progress but I'm afraid that statement, apart from being badly written, is full of inaccuracies. The only group of people who have not been "transparent" through this process is RU and I'm afraid repeated requests for information have been met with silence. They had some good guys involved but several have stepped back or moved on and the guys who attended the meeting last night behaved in a disgraceful manner.

 

I was going to pick through the statement piece by piece but since almost all of it is untrue and since the main motivation behind it seems to be to gain publicity I'm not going to bother at the moment. However, if they continue to bad mouth the process and make thinly veiled digs at people involved, including myself, then that might have to change.

 

It's unfortunate that they could not be accommodated but it is also worth remembering that they have no members and represent nobody but themselves. The main fans groups are continuing to speak in an attempt to get something that can be presented to the main fanbase. It is not about secrecy it is about proper presentation of a workable plan. If people choose not to participate for whatever reason that is entirely up to them.

[GovanAllan 0]

It could if there were enough members, and they attended meetings.

 

I don't understand why those who believe in the aims of the RST, don't join and try and change from within.

 

Maybe you should ask the ones who tried that and see what happened.

[craig 5,199]

We all know where much of the distrust of the RST comes from, so why cant that person stand down in the interests of the club ?

 

That isnt a dig at Mark as a) I dont know him and b) he has actually been a good mouthpiece of the club during the admin process - but if the RST is being held back in terms of membership numbers due to his involvement then surely the right thing to do is for him to resign - even if it is unwarranted.

 

More important would be for the RST to gain numbers and if by removing a Board member that frees up the process then it should happen.

 

Again, not a dig at Mark but sometimes perception is reality.

[bigy 0]

I think the issue with RST membership is a red herring. Initially, it would have meant anyone investing in the proposal, whose money would be refundable and held with Supporters DIrect until enough money was raised to launch a bid, would also have to pay an annual membership to the RST otherwise their money would be automatically returned to them. Obviously if this really takes off that could have given the RST significant income which they'd have to deal with.

 

So rather than ask for a membership fee, I understand those involved from the RST are proposing to change their rules and give anyone investing with Supporters Direct automatic membership. That would mean a much larger membership who could all vote on how the RST is run, and given it is a democratic organisation anyone who has concern can raise those and put it to a public vote. I think this proposal would need to be approved by the RST membership which may have contributed to some of the delays, but it does show that the RST are aware of the issues some supporters may have.

[RabiDuck 89]

I think the issue with RST membership is a red herring. Initially, it would have meant anyone investing in the proposal, whose money would be refundable and held with Supporters DIrect until enough money was raised to launch a bid, would also have to pay an annual membership to the RST otherwise their money would be automatically returned to them. Obviously if this really takes off that could have given the RST significant income which they'd have to deal with.

 

So rather than ask for a membership fee, I understand those involved from the RST are proposing to change their rules and give anyone investing with Supporters Direct automatic membership. That would mean a much larger membership who could all vote on how the RST is run, and given it is a democratic organisation anyone who has concern can raise those and put it to a public vote. I think this proposal would need to be approved by the RST membership which may have contributed to some of the delays, but it does show that the RST are aware of the issues some supporters may have.

 

Got to say, I tend to avoid the politics of fan groups. I'm a Rangers fan end of story and don't need to be part of a membership for that to be the case, this being the case I'm not overly aware of the issues with the RST (nor do I particularly want to so it's not an invitation for people to inform me of them, that's probably the last thing this discussion needs!).

 

It does strike me, however, that the solution to the above situation is that an investment to Supporters Direct could perhaps carry a non-voting membership of the RST, meaning that investment can be made without the added expense of a membership fee (and if wished, no further involvement with the RST other than an administrative purpose), but that this doesn't have to impact on the organisation or running of the RST.

[bigy 0]

Got to say, I tend to avoid the politics of fan groups. I'm a Rangers fan end of story and don't need to be part of a membership for that to be the case, this being the case I'm not overly aware of the issues with the RST (nor do I particularly want to so it's not an invitation for people to inform me of them, that's probably the last thing this discussion needs!).

 

It does strike me, however, that the solution to the above situation is that an investment to Supporters Direct could perhaps carry a non-voting membership of the RST, meaning that investment can be made without the added expense of a membership fee (and if wished, no further involvement with the RST other than an administrative purpose), but that this doesn't have to impact on the organisation or running of the RST.

 

I'm in the same position to be honest, but I think what you've suggested in your 2nd para is what they're actually trying to do - only the membership would give you a vote.

 

I don't know what all the issues are/were, but I do know there's an awareness that asking for a separate membership fee could cause problems and they're trying to overcome this.

 

The basis of the proposal is that Supporters Direct will only work with a Supporters Trust (and will only recognise 1 per club), and that to invest in the scheme individuals must be members of the Supporters Trust. That's why the RST has to be the vehicle that Supporters Direct use, and why they're trying to make it as easy as possible for people to invest money once the scheme is launched.

[RabiDuck 89]

I'm in the same position to be honest, but I think what you've suggested in your 2nd para is what they're actually trying to do - only the membership would give you a vote.

 

I don't know what all the issues are/were, but I do know there's an awareness that asking for a separate membership fee could cause problems and they're trying to overcome this.

 

The basis of the proposal is that Supporters Direct will only work with a Supporters Trust (and will only recognise 1 per club), and that to invest in the scheme individuals must be members of the Supporters Trust. That's why the RST has to be the vehicle that Supporters Direct use, and why they're trying to make it as easy as possible for people to invest money once the scheme is launched.

 

Bigy, thanks for that, makes a little more sense there. The reason for suggesting a non-voting membership is more that I can see it causing issues for RST if an investment gives a vote as it would result in a significant reduction of income for them. If I were a member of RST, I'd be very tempted in those circumstances to use the memebrship money to go directly towards the SD mission rather than into RST, and certainly prospective new members would consider the same I'm sure. Plus an influx of "new members" who may have issues witht he RST would potentially use their new membership for mischief, a non-voting registration would eliminate that possibility.

[amms 0]

Rangers Unite‏@RangersUnite

 

5. The appointment of Mr Ian Davidson MP - there was no consultation or approval by RU.

6. RU respectfully believe that the political views of Mr Davidson are in conflict with the

vast majority of... Rangers Supporters, which would be an obstacle to success.

http://coplandroad.org/#471668

 

The arrogance, ignorance and stupidity of that part of the statement alone is staggering. The thought-police strike again.

[bigy 0]

Even putting aside how badly written and inaccurate their statement is, how they've gone about it is totally wrong. For a group who proclaim to want to 'unite' the support I would have expected more tolerance and understanding.

 

The correct thing to do would have been to read their statement to the rest of the working group, advise them that they'd no longer be involved, then stay quiet for now and let the working group get on with putting the proposals together. Then, once the proposals are launched and put to the support, Rangers Unite could have made a statement as to why they think the proposals are wrong for Rangers, and a proper debate could ensue.

 

The way they have went about this is childish, arrogant and in my opinion disgraceful. They are entitled to their view, but there is time and a place and a proper way of communicating that view. They failed on all 3 counts.

 

I fail to see how any group can now work with Rangers Unite, as they clearly aren't a group who want to represent the fans views and unite the support. Rather, they are a group who want to dictate to fans what they should believe and think.

[Bluedell 5,350]

I think the issue with RST membership is a red herring. Initially, it would have meant anyone investing in the proposal, whose money would be refundable and held with Supporters DIrect until enough money was raised to launch a bid, would also have to pay an annual membership to the RST otherwise their money would be automatically returned to them.

 

We are to give money to Supporters Direct? Seriously?

 

1. The Scottish Council contains Morag McHaffie who called for Partick Thistle fans to boycott Rangers games if we ended up in the 1st Division.

2. The Scottish Council Chairman's own Trust were against us being admitted to the 1st division, threatening boycotts.

3. They allow the IRA supporting, Jeanette Findlay led Celtic Trust to retain their membership despite all of their pro-IRA statements.

4. The ArabTrust are one of their leading members who have reported our fans to the police.

5. Supporters Direct did not offer any support to the Rangers fans generally over the past year when we had all of our problems.

 

I can't see me entrusting any of my cash to an organisation riddled with such anti-Rangers feeling. I want nothing to do with supporters of other clubs and would not be in favour of giving them any cash from Rangers fans to hold.