3909 04 0 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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. From what you've said, annual membership fees of £12k are due from the number of active members you're claiming. Does the latest set of published accounts contain a comparable figure to reflect this? If not, why not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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. tag teams supporting a view on the rst are not exclusive to ff. nor are bannings for not supporting an admins viewpoint on the rst. its far safer criticising the rst on ff than supporting it elsewhere I've found from experience. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 From what you've said, annual membership fees of £12k are due from the number of active members you're claiming. Does the latest set of published accounts contain a comparable figure to reflect this? If not, why not? Yes. Although the accounts are for the year to 5th April 2012. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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. And there you have it. By 'founder members' do you mean people who joined in the first year? What significance is that? How many of the current Board are on FF and how are we a mouthpiece? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 My only real issue with the RST was when they were being TBK cheerleaders. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 My only real issue with the RST was when they were being TBK cheerleaders. where they not instrumental in putting mr miller off buying the club with the banners and abusive emails? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 where they not instrumental in putting mr miller off buying the club with the banners and abusive emails? Mr Dingwall certainly encouraged people to 'contact' him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 no they were not. also bill miller wanted us on the basis we stayed in the spl as a newco. we know how that went. he also had little cash his offer was to be paid up over 4 years. his getting preferred bidder was nothing more than a delaying tactic by d@p no one could possibly believe his offer was viable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 My only real issue with the RST was when they were being TBK cheerleaders. but they are ok now they are looking to help people invest in greens share issue i assume? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 but they are ok now they are looking to help people invest in greens share issue i assume? It shows they can look past previous agendas anyway. 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.