bossy 0 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Speaking as an RST life member, I would have no problem with the membership fee being reduced to a nominal amount if that would serve the greater good. The issue here is really the legal structure needed to make such a scheme work. I am sure that a different structure could be put in place but that would take time. The merits of using the RST structure is that it already exists. While I have always argued that the leadership of an effort to buy a substantial holding in the club is very important, far more important are the details of the scheme. I think that, if the the deal is genuinely a good one then the figurehead issue would solve itself. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Speaking as an RST life member, I would have no problem with the membership fee being reduced to a nominal amount if that would serve the greater good. The issue here is really the legal structure needed to make such a scheme work. I am sure that a different structure could be put in place but that would take time. The merits of using the RST structure is that it already exists. While I have always argued that the leadership of an effort to buy a substantial holding in the club is very important, far more important are the details of the scheme. I think that, if the the deal is genuinely a good one then the figurehead issue would solve itself. You make some good points there bossy, but I disagree that the legal structure is the real issue to make such a scheme work. I'm not saying that's not an issue by any means, but I think the real issue for fans en masse will be the identity of the vehicle and in the case of the RST being the vehicle, there's inevitably going to be a very big question mark. Obviously the Trust have a fair amount of support and I think a lot of us would support this scheme that's in the works, but I also think a lot of fans won't support it purely because the RST is the vehicle. Maybe I'm wrong though and I certainly agree that the details of the scheme are extremely important, perhaps even more important than the identity of the vehicle to make it happen because as you say, the issue of a figurehead may well solve itself and if it's a high calibre of person or people, then that might just be enough to get a large number of fans onboard. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I'm a guy with a beard whose family had the good sense to name him after the greatest western ever. So when did you change your name from "The Searchers"?....... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I'm a guy with a beard whose family had the good sense to name him after the greatest western ever. Would have been better as an Alan, lad. Still none the wiser of this group. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,178 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I like the sound of the Trust scheme and admire those involved for attempting to engage the support in such a positive way. It will certainly be fascinating to see if they can overcome image problems outwith their core membership to make a success of it. It's a real shame RU are no longer involved as that may have helped to a degree - certainly having two different plans is unlikely to help. Generally elements of our support have to move beyond the pettiness we have seen in recent years. A few opinion formers across the online community continue to seem to want to prefer to be divisive than inclusive. That's the biggest obstacle to schemes such as this - amongst the online fans anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest youngsy Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Trying to get onto Rangers Unite website,it keeps coming up"website can't be found". For a supporters group you seem to make it very hard to contact any of you. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 It looks like their latest statement is more akin to a suicide note. At least two named groups wish to be disassociated from it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,877 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 They've released another statement calling for and claiming unity from a range of supporter groups, but excluding RST. RTID NI have since distanced themselves from it. This mob really are a bit of a shambles. Well meaning, I'm sure. But don't claim unity if you are deliberately excluding someone, and don't actually have the backing of one of the groups you claim to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest govansw1 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The site is being upgraded. 'This site is under constuction' is what it says. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest enigmablue Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Having been previously active in the Assembly (and a long standing but inactive RST member) I voiced my concerns back in April over the lack of meaningful or detailed information on the RU website about their proposal. I simply felt it was full of motherhood statements. The fans during the whole CVA process wanted detail not well intentioned grand plans. The reply I got from a gent called Alex was generally condensing and aggressive in its tone. In particular, I was told that most fans would be 'uninterested in the mechanics of it'. I'm sorry, but the first rule of investing is, know what you're investing into. I started to draft a response but decided not to as other events unfolded (Walter, Bomber, then Sevco). Another Assembly contact also was given short shrift when asking some detailed questions. The level of paranoia over their grand plans seem to be high and they lack any transparency in the makeup of their group which is ironic given they seem to have no problem making personal attacks on others. As for the RST, poor communication channels, a myopic view of what constitutes the whole supporter base, and the general perception of little generals being the main players will IMHO see any new plan have limited success. As for my thoughts, I'd prefer a community investment vehicle (which sounds like what the RST are hoping to do) but focused on (part-ownership of) assets not just attaining a share holding. Most of had shares. They are now worthless. I want the fans to own something tangible that can we can invest not just our cash, but our time, brains trust and enthusiasm. That doesn't in itself need to be an actual part of Rangers FC but could be associated e.g. Rangers Museum, Placemaking on Matchdays etc After a good 5 years of effort in my part of the world and having seen first hand the workings of the Assembly, I'm glad I'm out of it now. It sort of parallels my view of the actual management and senior figures in the club itself. All good Rangers men (and some women) with the best of intentions however they are limited by their own (professional) abilities. The analogy I use for the club is a multi-million pound business run like a corner shop. Perhaps Mr Green and his consortium members are addressing this but I haven't heard of too many personnel changes during the regime change. It's easy to snipe from the outside, and I know it's hard to change from the inside also. I don't doubt RU's heart is in the right place but they seem to have gone about their business in some sort of siege mentality mode and not one of cooperation and coordination of the best interests of the ordinary punters. 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.