'Unified Supporters Platform'

[andy steel 0]

Two points in reply to that, Zappa:

 

1) If Gersnet was to come out with a statement, backed by all its users, I think it would mean something, because this site is not polluted by the cretinocracy which spoils the big sites; if, eg, all users on here were agreed Ally had had it, there would be very little way back for him, because the users on here are reasoned, sane and grown up. But that won't happen, I think.

 

2) The boycott - it's a waste of time thinking about it until we get back into some version of a top league. Any matches against SPL teams between now and that point will have the novelty value, aggro-element, whatever you want to call it. And any financial impact on these clubs - which is our one and only weapon, as fans, against them - will be minimal, cause their own fans/local timothy will turn out. The financial hit we can give them can only have any effect when we are just another member of a boring, seen-it-all-before top league. Then, when their fans have melted away even more than they have already, and they are reckoning on a Rangers based injection of maybe 5,000 ticket sales - then, when we tell them to shove their tickets and fuck up their cash flow for that month, then will it be worth getting the boycott into action.

 

All talk of boycotts until then just makes it harder to organise what must be done when the time comes.

 

See, it's at times like that my Marxist Revolutionary Training will come in handy. The day will come, fellow Bears, when you will stand assembled in Edmiston Drive hailing me and my lefty politics as the Saviour of Rangers. Who knows? Perhaps a Leninist statue, admittedly wider of girth than the great revolutionary, may one day stand beside Greig.

 

edit: Sorry.

Edited October 5, 2012 by andy steel

[BrahimHemdani 1]

My understanding (and I may need correcting) is that there has been 2 statements issued by the USP. The first one was where they basically said that they weren't going to allow the RST to join and if the RST wanted to talk then they had to contact RU's executive assistant. That was the one that RM and RTID NI said that they didn't want their names put to. The parties did see the statement before it was issued and feedback was given prior to the given deadline but it was issued with their names on it anyway.

 

The second statement was in respect of the boycott and I'm not aware of anyone withdrawing their names from it. I think that they may not have all fully cleared it (or even seen it) before issue but they don't have a problem with the general gist of it.

 

This is very helpful but I am confused.

 

Let me see if I've got it right.

 

Apparently a new group called Rangers Unite met on 22 September 2012 and â??deemed themselves as fit and proper to represent the majority Supportâ?; claiming that they are â??perceived (by whom, themselves?) as committed to Rangers Football Clubâ??s wellbeing; and have consistently demonstrated this in both the short and long termâ?, which I donâ??t doubt.

 

The new group stated that there were significant representations at the meeting from the following existing Groups: The Rangers Supporters Assembly; The Rangers Supporters Association; The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund; Rangers Till I Die N.I.; Vanguard Bears; Rangers Media Forum; Copland Road.org.

 

In a statement to Rangers Supporters Trust they said inter alia:

 

Rangers Supporterâ??s Trust (RST) was not invited to todayâ??s meeting. The reasons for this are as follows:

 

It has been deemed that RST are pursuing a â??convenientâ?? plan for buying â??stockâ?? in Rangers FC. They are pursuing this avenue with the assistance of Supporters Direct.

 

In our opinion, the RST, at the present time, lack the credibility to be leading a fanâ??s takeover of the Club. The main problem with their â??proposalâ?? is the caveat that, to buy Shares in the Club, â??allâ?? Fans would â??needâ?? to become members of the RST. We consider this to be both unwanted and unnecessary. We also feel that this â??planâ?? has elements of self interest attached to it. We, therefore, cannot endorse it.

 

Certain RST Board members are also perceived as divisive within the Rangers Support â?? most notably, Mr.Dingwall. A number of groups also made it clear that they would not engage in the USP process if Mr. Dingwall was a part of the USP process.

 

There was also a unanimous view that this antipathy was reserved to only some members of the RST Board (not to its Members). This â??minorityâ?? are perceived to have a self-serving agenda that is not in line with the vast majority of Rangers Fans. This assertion was unanimously agreed by all Groups who attended Saturdayâ??s meeting.

 

Since this was the new groupâ??s first meeting one might well ponder how they could have pre-formed an opinion about anything let alone an invitation to the RST and who it was that was â??deemedâ? to have an opinion about the Community Share Scheme. This also begs the question about how the "statement" was conveyed to the RST.

 

In any event the same or similar group called the Unified Supporters Platform, this time not claiming specific support from the RFFF or RM but including Rangers Unite (so it is not clear if RFFF and RM subscribed to the statement by virtue of being members/supporters of Rangers Unite or not or indeed if Rangers Unite have any members), Blue Heaven, Union Bears and Number One Fanzine issued a statement on 1 October 2012 calling for:

 

â??the Rangers support to withdraw its financial input to any SPL club by boycotting the next round of the League Cup, drawn on 4th October, should our opposition be ANY Scottish Premier League club away from home.â? in other words a boycott of any such SPL team.

 

Now hereâ??s where Iâ??m confused.

 

The RST are members of the Assembly and the RSA have two members on the RST Board; and yet if the first statement is correct then both the Assembly and the RSA take the view that a leading member of the RST Board (some would say THE leading member), Mr Dingwall is divisive within the Rangers Support and furthermore they express "antipathy" (which could mean anything from ill-feeling to downright hatred) towards a minority of that Board who they "perceive as having a self-serving agenda that is not in line with the vast majority of Rangers Fans".

 

The RST are not members/supporters of Rangers Unite or this so-called Unified Supporters Platform but they are members of the Assembly who signed/endorsed both statements. However, the RST did not appear to support the boycott (although perhaps conveniently that is now moot) but the aforementioned Mr Mark Dingwall is on the Committee of the RFFF as is the Chair of the Assembly, Mr Andrew Kerr. The Assembly and presumably Mr Kerr supported the call for a boycott and if RFFF are still members or supporters of Rangers Unite then it would appear that they did as well.

 

Isnâ??t there a degree of contradiction here?

Edited November 1, 2012 by BrahimHemdani
typo

[plgsarmy 111]

This is very helpful but I am confused.

 

Let me see if I've got it right.

 

Apparently a new group called Rangers Unite met on 22 September 2012 and “deemed themselves as fit and proper to represent the majority Support”; claiming that they are “perceived (by whom, themselves?) as committed to Rangers Football Club’s wellbeing; and have consistently demonstrated this in both the short and long term”, which I don’t doubt.

 

The new group stated that there were significant representations at the meeting from the following existing Groups: The Rangers Supporters Assembly; The Rangers Supporters Association; The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund; Rangers Till I Die N.I.; Vanguard Bears; Rangers Media Forum; Copland Road.org.

 

In a statement to Rangers Supporters Trust they said inter alia:

 

Rangers Supporter’s Trust (RST) was not invited to today’s meeting. The reasons for this are as follows:

 

It has been deemed that RST are pursuing a ‘convenient’ plan for buying ‘stock’ in Rangers FC. They are pursuing this avenue with the assistance of Supporters Direct.

 

In our opinion, the RST, at the present time, lack the credibility to be leading a fan’s takeover of the Club. The main problem with their ‘proposal’ is the caveat that, to buy Shares in the Club, ‘all’ Fans would ‘need’ to become members of the RST. We consider this to be both unwanted and unnecessary. We also feel that this ‘plan’ has elements of self interest attached to it. We, therefore, cannot endorse it.

 

Certain RST Board members are also perceived as divisive within the Rangers Support – most notably, Mr.Dingwall. A number of groups also made it clear that they would not engage in the USP process if Mr. Dingwall was a part of the USP process.

 

There was also a unanimous view that this antipathy was reserved to only some members of the RST Board (not to its Members). This ‘minority’ are perceived to have a self-serving agenda that is not in line with the vast majority of Rangers Fans. This assertion was unanimously agreed by all Groups who attended Saturday’s meeting.

 

Since this was the new group’s first meeting one might well ponder how they could have pre-formed an opinion about anything let alone an invitation to the RST and who it was that was “deemed” to have an opinion about the Community Share Scheme. This also begs the question about how the "statement" was conveyed to the RST.

 

In any event the same or similar group called the Unified Supporters Platform, this time not claiming specific support from the RFFF or RM but including Rangers Unite (so it is not clear if RFFF and RM subscribed to the statement by virtue of being members/supporters of Rangers Unite or not or indeed if Rangers Unite have any members), Blue Heaven, Union Bears and Number One Fanzine issued a statement on 1 October 2012 calling for:

 

“the Rangers support to withdraw its financial input to any SPL club by boycotting the next round of the League Cup, drawn on 4th October, should our opposition be ANY Scottish Premier League club away from home.” in other words a boycott of any such SPL team.

 

Now here’s where I’m confused.

 

The RST are members of the Assembly and the RSA have two members on the RST Board; and yet if the first statement is correct then both the Assembly and the RSA take the view that a leading member of the RST Board (some would say THE leading member), Mr Dingwall is divisive within the Rangers Support and furthermore they express "antipathy" (which could mean anything form ill-feeling to downright hatred) towards a minority of that Board who they "perceive as having a self-serving agenda that is not in line with the vast majority of Rangers Fans".

 

The RST are not members/supporters of Rangers Unite or this so-called Unified Supporters Platform but they are members of the Assembly who signed/endorsed both statements. However, the RST did not appear to support the boycott (although perhaps conveniently that is now moot) but the aforementioned Mr Mark Dingwall is on the Committee of the RFFF as is the Chair of the Assembly, Mr Andrew Kerr. The Assembly and presumably Mr Kerr supported the call for a boycott and if RFFF are still members or supporters of Rangers Unite then it would appear that they did as well.

 

Isn’t there a degree of contradiction here?

 

I'd love to know what the self-serving agenda is.

[Shane 0]

Whatever it is I've made the decision, after a series of talks this week with my staff and the organizers, that we're not going to be part of this anymore. We write opinion as our purpose. We don't really need someone else to do it for us and sign our name.

 

I'd say most of the problems from my perspective just come from the bad timing of everything I've had going on and not being able to be involved in the process.

[Fury 0]

For my tuppence worth I can confirm everything Shane said about him not knowing about the first statement. I can't speak for the other guys at TRS but I wouldn't support putting our name to anything the USP come out with. I thought the first statement was ridiculous, inaccurate and divisive. I personally agree with the second, but TRS are a website not a group and I don't see why we would have our name on something like that.

 

RU have had about 3-4 public digs at me now in their various statements and letters on their website. Some have just been inaccurate and some deliberately misleading. I've generally resisted the temptation to bite back although I've slipped a couple of times. How they can claim to be attempting to unite anything is beyond me. The Assembly are supposed to be the umbrella group for all the supporter organisations - something they have made clear on several occasions. I don't understand why we now have the self elected, corporately structured Rangers Unite making statements on their behalf but perhaps it will all become clear in time.