Jings - Leggoland

[Bluedell 5,356]

most rangers fans aren't in a supporters club.

 

So you are saying that the people in supporters clubs are not a reflection of the support in general?

 

I think that you're probably right in respect of your claim about masons but would suggest that 15 years ago, I wouldn't be confident at agreeing with it.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

So you are saying that the people in supporters clubs are not a reflection of the support in general?

 

I think that you're probably right in respect of your claim about masons but would suggest that 15 years ago, I wouldn't be confident at agreeing with it.

 

my point was really that membership of anything doesn't equate to agreement or disagreement really.

 

I vote Tory but am not a member of the conservative party. I love animals but have not joined the WWF. the list of possible analogys is probably endless, I picked that one as it seemed appropriate not because I thought it was particularly accurate.

 

for the record I have no idea of the actual statistics.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Wow.

 

That is some claim. Perhaps, to some outsiders who don't like, what's his name.

 

Anytime I read criticism about the RST, it always comes down to dislike of Dingwall. If he controls everything and everybody in the RST, it doesn't say much for people like shoredbear or plgsarmy etc.

 

it says a lot about the critics I find. the nature and accuracy of their claims says the rest.

[3909 04 0]

it says a lot about the critics I find. the nature and accuracy of their claims says the rest.

 

Your "findings" are inaccurate, as usual these days. I like and am friendly with Dingwall and I was one of the earliest members of the Trust, an organisation whose aims I support.

 

However, I speak my mind and I know the RST will never grow materially in its present format.

 

Those who disagree are welcome to bookmark my post and talk to me in a year's time when my predictions can be judged.

[Guest lisburnranger]

Your "findings" are inaccurate, as usual these days. I like and am friendly with Dingwall and I was one of the earliest members of the Trust, an organisation whose aims I support.

 

However, I speak my mind and I know the RST will never grow materially in its present format.

 

Those who disagree are welcome to bookmark my post and talk to me in a year's time when my predictions can be judged.

 

Out of interest, what would it take for material growth?

 

I have read many allegations of financial improprieties on this board and others regarding the trust. To my knowledge nobody has ever contacted the police or the FSA regarding these accusations. Some of which are very serious. These unfounded allegations are far more divisive than any one individual. The RST board has a broad range of talented professionals who are anything but "yes men". There are those who wish to undermine the RST for their own reasons and no matter what the RST does, these individuals will find reason to criticise.

[3909 04 0]

Out of interest, what would it take for material growth?

 

I have read many allegations of financial improprieties on this board and others regarding the trust. To my knowledge nobody has ever contacted the police or the FSA regarding these accusations. Some of which are very serious. These unfounded allegations are far more divisive than any one individual. The RST board has a broad range of talented professionals who are anything but "yes men". There are those who wish to undermine the RST for their own reasons and no matter what the RST does, these individuals will find reason to criticise.

 

My opinion? Put simply, the RST needs to be more than a mouthpiece for a single Rangers website. The proprietor of said website and its associated fanzine has an unfortunate knack of falling out permanently with too many fellow Rangers fans. I don't think he's solely to blame for these fallouts but neither is he completely without blame.

 

The RST should not be a vehicle to help any individual make a living and, unfortunately, that's how it's seen by too many people; rightly or wrongly.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

the rst has its own website and can hardly act on behalf of the two websites who's reason for living is to hate the rst.

Edited November 30, 2012 by the gunslinger

[Guest lisburnranger]

My opinion? Put simply, the RST needs to be more than a mouthpiece for a single Rangers website. The proprietor of said website and its associated fanzine has an unfortunate knack of falling out permanently with too many fellow Rangers fans. I don't think he's solely to blame for these fallouts but neither is he completely without blame.

 

The RST should not be a vehicle to help any individual make a living and, unfortunately, that's how it's seen by too many people; rightly or wrongly.

 

I agree with a lot of that. I would disagree that the RST is a mouthpiece for FF. That implication is insulting to the other members of the board. I also disagree that is used for anyone to make a living, but as you say that is a perception others may have and unfortunately, an individual's perception is their reality. IMO the RST lost sight of it's true goal which is supporter representation. Mark Dingwall and David Edgar before him conducted themselves very credibly in the media and fought the Rangers corner, however many then perceived that this is what the RST were there to do.

 

With a lot of new board members and the BuyRangers campaign the RST is working on it's original goals

[plgsarmy 111]

OK, so £12k per annum then. That's quite a material sum, which should be visible on the annual accounts. Plus, I wouldn't be too dismissive of MUST's free e-membership scheme. Surely the RST would love a database of 188,000 potential members?

 

The problem with the RST, even if you won't acknowledge it, is their insistence on putting a £ sign on every activity they undertake. That, plus the memory of bitter boardroom battles, their less than squeaky clean financial dealings and the continued presence of one particularly divisive figure right at the heart of the Trust, makes Bears reluctant to invest anything in an organisation supposedly set up for the benefit of fams.

 

To outsiders, it looks far more like a smug, condescending, know-it-all self-interest group.

 

Firstly, as you will probably know, our accounts are independently audited each year by a very reputable company. These accounts are available on our website. I disagree regarding the £ sign. Every year (not last year due to turmoil at the club) we hold a family day where families come along and are entertained for nothing. We hire bouncy castles for the kids, have face painting, a disco and each child gets a bag full of freebies including a tee-shirt and CD. This costs us quite a bit of money but we feel it's worth it to help introduce kids into the Rangers family.

 

Of course we'd love a database of 188,000, who wouldn't. The other things you refer to happened years ago and were greatly exaggerated.

[3909 04 0]

the rst has its own website and can hardly act on behalf of the two websites who's reason for living is to hate the rst.

 

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is staggering. FF is full of RST board members, past & present, who act as a tag team every single time a thread starts criticising the RST. Yes, the RST has its website but it also has FF as its very effective mouth-piece.

 

Plus, Vanguardbears (which I take it is one of the sites whose "reason for living is to hate the RST" as you claim) is full of ex-RST founder members, some of whom were asked repeatedly to join the RST board. Unfortunately, they subsequently fell foul of you-know-who, were banned from the site which you state has nothing whatever to do with the RST, no sirree and started their own site.

 

If the intention is to grow the RST, they and their supporters will have to do a whole lot better than dismiss any criticism with, "You don't like the RST, do you?" Expanding the size of a fans' group is grown-up stuff.

Edited December 1, 2012 by 3909 04