Jings - Leggoland

[Stimpy 0]

Not in the least.

 

You've had several pops at me on this thread. Here's your chance to reveal your hand. What's your story, Mr Picky? Why do you have such a hard-on for me?

 

I can't take your posts seriously, you can't back them up, Rangers fans (some) prefer to belittle and undermine their fellow Rangers fans. Therefore I prefer to take the piss.

 

Like just this minute, friend of mine received a text (the origins of the text are known) asking what his court appearance was about tomorrow. But there is no day in court. Now tell me, do I get all hung up by childish, in some cases sinister, pranks or should I laugh at grown men on the internet talking utter baws?

 

Don't take it personal, we don't know each other, I'm sure we'd enjoy a cold pint together, but this type of stuff takes me to the fair.

[Guest lisburnranger]

What little info we had about other bids was spun as negatively as possible in order to make TBK bid look good.

 

As we've heard, TBK had approached RST to discuss their plans. It seems clear now those plans included supporter representation, which explains why Dingwall & co practically came in their pants every time they mentioned TBK. (Self-interest?? Perish the thought!!)

 

TBKs had pots of money, they just chose not to invest it in buying Rangers.

 

The other bidders were almost all better, which explains why their bids were recommended ahead of the increasingly wretched TBK bids.

 

TBK should have been the preferred bidders but they blew it. Their association with Dingwall & the RST hindered rather than aiding their bid. That's because any party backed unequivocally by MD naturally becomes suspect in the eyes of the wider support.

 

The above may not be palatable but, as Bill Hicks said, "It's the fuckin' truth".

 

Re the part in bold. That's a couple of times you've mentioned MD dividing the wider support. Being incredibly generous, the online Rangers community though FF/VB/RM/GN and the other forums, represents between 15-20% of the support. That means the overwhelming majority of the support don't have an opinion on MD or the RST. In fact the only exposure they have had to Mark and the RST, is watching Mark conduct himself very well during the various TV stuff he has done. The biggest mistake online bears can make is to believe they are reflective of the support as a whole. FF learnt that years ago after the anti Murray protest outside Ibrox.

 

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but in terms of the wider support you are in the minority. Given that the largest online community is FF and you believe they are an RST mouthpiece, it puts you in the minority online. That my friend, for all it's obvious faults, is democracy

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What little info we had about other bids was spun as negatively as possible in order to make TBK bid look good.

 

As we've heard, TBK had approached RST to discuss their plans. It seems clear now those plans included supporter representation, which explains why Dingwall & co practically came in their pants every time they mentioned TBK. (Self-interest?? Perish the thought!!)

 

TBKs had pots of money, they just chose not to invest it in buying Rangers.

 

The other bidders were almost all better, which explains why their bids were recommended ahead of the increasingly wretched TBK bids.

 

TBK should have been the preferred bidders but they blew it. Their association with Dingwall & the RST hindered rather than aiding their bid. That's because any party backed unequivocally by MD naturally becomes suspect in the eyes of the wider support.

 

The above may not be palatable but, as Bill Hicks said, "It's the fuckin' truth".

 

 

if you look up hyperbole in the dictionary it links to this post

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Re the part in bold. That's a couple of times you've mentioned MD dividing the wider support. Being incredibly generous, the online Rangers community though FF/VB/RM/GN and the other forums, represents between 15-20% of the support. That means the overwhelming majority of the support don't have an opinion on MD or the RST. In fact the only exposure they have had to Mark and the RST, is watching Mark conduct himself very well during the various TV stuff he has done. The biggest mistake online bears can make is to believe they are reflective of the support as a whole. FF learnt that years ago after the anti Murray protest outside Ibrox.

 

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but in terms of the wider support you are in the minority. Given that the largest online community is FF and you believe they are an RST mouthpiece, it puts you in the minority online. That my friend, for all it's obvious faults, is democracy

 

one in ten of my mates could pick mark out of a line up if your lucky.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Or HMRC strung them and us all along, certainly wouldn't rule it out given their behaviour and all the leaks.

 

There was a CVA or nothing stance which I assume means they wouldn't entertain a newco back up deal like Green did. That was just stupid.

 

 

or green was stupid to give hmrc an easy out, who knows.

[bossy 0]

Truth is, the Green consortium were the only ones that went about the bidding process professionally. They properly evaluated the opportunity, they lined up the investment funds, they put management in place, they were realistic about a CVA or a Newco, they paid as little as they needed to and nobody saw them coming.

 

At the bidding stage, the support does not have a role unless they have money in the bank. I urged the RST as long ago as the first Parks proposal that they needed to start building funds is they wanted a seat at the table (actually, I was telling Colin Glass the same in the early years of the RST). From that perspective, the RFFF was a huge tactical error because it diverted funds from a strategic investment to a day to day operations fund.

 

Beyond their role as customers of the club, the importance of the support was their ability to subscribe to a future share issue. This was true for all the bidders and not just the BKs. Thus, it was a smart move by the BKs to try to get the main supporters organisations onside. And, lets remember, it was not just the RST. It was the three main organisations who were working together. The BK bid did not fail because of the presence of the RST or the other organisations. It failed because it could not come up with - or was unwilling to come up with - cold hard cash.

 

I remain convinced that a strong supporter shareholding is important for the future of the club. However, as we move forward to the future share issue, it seems we are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. Under David Murray we were 10,000 small shareholders who were hopelessly fragmented. It seems that the RST is the only organisation which is trying to build a small shareholders grouping. It is all very well to be anti-RST or anti-Dingwall but what is your realistic and viable alternative?

[3909 04 0]

Truth is, the Green consortium were the only ones that went about the bidding process professionally. They properly evaluated the opportunity, they lined up the investment funds, they put management in place, they were realistic about a CVA or a Newco, they paid as little as they needed to and nobody saw them coming.

 

At the bidding stage, the support does not have a role unless they have money in the bank. I urged the RST as long ago as the first Parks proposal that they needed to start building funds is they wanted a seat at the table (actually, I was telling Colin Glass the same in the early years of the RST). From that perspective, the RFFF was a huge tactical error because it diverted funds from a strategic investment to a day to day operations fund.

 

Beyond their role as customers of the club, the importance of the support was their ability to subscribe to a future share issue. This was true for all the bidders and not just the BKs. Thus, it was a smart move by the BKs to try to get the main supporters organisations onside. And, lets remember, it was not just the RST. It was the three main organisations who were working together. The BK bid did not fail because of the presence of the RST or the other organisations. It failed because it could not come up with - or was unwilling to come up with - cold hard cash.

 

I remain convinced that a strong supporter shareholding is important for the future of the club. However, as we move forward to the future share issue, it seems we are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. Under David Murray we were 10,000 small shareholders who were hopelessly fragmented. It seems that the RST is the only organisation which is trying to build a small shareholders grouping. It is all very well to be anti-RST or anti-Dingwall but what is your realistic and viable alternative?

 

I actually agree with a lot of that. TBK's bid failed because it was unrealistic, delusional and cheap. They should have had the backing of a far wider spread of the fan base but, as Gunslinger points out, they didn't even have the backing of the majority of users on FF; a site whose owner was openly and unashamedly pushing their bid at the expense of any alternative. FF/RST's excessively saccharine backing for TBK put off other Rangers fans. The reason, whether or not you want to hear it, is because any cause backed by those organisations' main man immediately raises suspicions about his motives and the extent of his involvement. Again, that's not directly why TBK bid failed but had they enjoyed the backing and views of a larger section of the fan-base, their bid may have been more realistic than the rather pitiful attempt they managed.

 

And as for my views, I'm not anti-RST but I'm critical of the current, rather tired set-up. What is my alternative? Here are some suggestions for a start:

 

Constitution: the perception of the RST board is it's made up of one shot-caller and 11 hand-picked helpers who are allowed to stay as long as they tow the party line but are jettisoned as soon as they stray. Think how Spitting Image portrayed Thatcher as a hard-as-nails dictator and her Cabinet as spineless wimps and you get the idea of how the RST board is viewed; rightly or wrongly.

 

Openness: my memories of RST matters on FF are of threads started by Trust figures advising users that an RST/RFC meeting was imminent. Cue much interest and suggestions for what should be discussed. What then followed, every single time, was an ominous silence lasting days. No feedback post-meeting, just, "We'll tell you when we can, the minutes haven't been approved yet". Rangers fans don't appreciate being treated like mushrooms, don't do it.

 

Term of office: every RST office-bearer should serve a term of 2 years at a time, with a max of 2 terms per person before stepping down. No exceptions. I can't see why anyone would object to this.

 

Co-opting figures onto board: don't agree changes to the RST constitution without consulting the membership. Even if the board think it's a great idea and will help achieve long-held aims, don't do it.

 

Media/PR strategy: devise and implement a sensible approach to media relations. Don't let just anyone talk to the press, especially not a well-meaning but miles-off-the-pace septuagenarian. Pick 1 or 2 people and train them in the murky art of PR. Brief friendly press figures, plant anti-Celtic/anti-SFA/anti-SPL stories. Don't just talk to enemies every time they ask "because it's important to get our side of the story out." It's far more important to pick stories which can show RFC in a positive light and speak out on them. Don't get drawn into stories which can only damage RFC, like a phone-in about Lennon receiving nail-bombs which the RST joined on 5Live. Why, FFS? What did that story have to do with Rangers? Did Jeanette Findlay comment when Nacho received death threats or Kyle Bartley was racially abused on Twitter? Get PR smart, now.

 

Link/association with one web-site and opposition to others: the intrinsic link between RST & FF has to end, as does the playground hatred for VB/RM. These are grown men in their 40s and older, FFS. I'm sure they all have reasons for not talking to each other any longer but let's forget about "threats" or insults and move on.

 

I've said my piece on this for now but just to summarise, I can't accept the Gunslinger, "FF is a fabulous site, full of open, un-hindered debate where criticism of the RST is welcomed" nor the plgsarmy, "I can't say I've ever given any thought to how the RST would be without MD" viewpoints. If such views continue to appear on here unchallenged, I may return to dispute them.

[Bluedell 5,357]

Constitution: the perception of the RST board is it's made up of one shot-caller and 11 hand-picked helpers who are allowed to stay as long as they tow the party line but are jettisoned as soon as they stray. Think how Spitting Image portrayed Thatcher as a hard-as-nails dictator and her Cabinet as spineless wimps and you get the idea of how the RST board is viewed; rightly or wrongly.

 

I think a large part of the problem is that it is the same person who represents the RST on all committees - Assembly, RFFF, RFWG etc etc. The Board should share these responsibiliies around a lot more.

 

Openness: my memories of RST matters on FF are of threads started by Trust figures advising users that an RST/RFC meeting was imminent. Cue much interest and suggestions for what should be discussed. What then followed, every single time, was an ominous silence lasting days. No feedback post-meeting, just, "We'll tell you when we can, the minutes haven't been approved yet". Rangers fans don't appreciate being treated like mushrooms, don't do it.

 

This is one of these no win situations. This view is perfectly understandable but if the RST don't agree to have the minutes approved by the club then there is no meeting. Unfortunately there is no easy solution and it's my view that it's better to have the meetings and give a watered down version of the minutes to the fans than not to have the meetings.

 

 

 

Term of office: every RST office-bearer should serve a term of 2 years at a time, with a max of 2 terms per person before stepping down. No exceptions. I can't see why anyone would object to this.

 

The RST have struggled to get people to stand for board positions at times and to limit people to only 4 years may cause problems. I think that there definitely should be some limit but I think that 4 years is a bit on the short side.

 

Co-opting figures onto board: don't agree changes to the RST constitution without consulting the membership. Even if the board think it's a great idea and will help achieve long-held aims, don't do it.

 

Changes to consitution - agree that members should be fully advised prior to any changes and consulted where necessary.

 

Co-opting members onto the board - a necessary function but anyone co-opted should be subsequently ratified at an AGM and have the same election and terms of office as other board members.

 

 

Media/PR strategy: devise and implement a sensible approach to media relations. Don't let just anyone talk to the press, especially not a well-meaning but miles-off-the-pace septuagenarian. Pick 1 or 2 people and train them in the murky art of PR. Brief friendly press figures, plant anti-Celtic/anti-SFA/anti-SPL stories. Don't just talk to enemies every time they ask "because it's important to get our side of the story out." It's far more important to pick stories which can show RFC in a positive light and speak out on them. Don't get drawn into stories which can only damage RFC, like a phone-in about Lennon receiving nail-bombs which the RST joined on 5Live. Why, FFS? What did that story have to do with Rangers? Did Jeanette Findlay comment when Nacho received death threats or Kyle Bartley was racially abused on Twitter? Get PR smart, now.

 

Agreed. Part of the problem is again finding people willing and able to do this difficult job. David Edgar was generally very good at it and Mark Dingwall has done well recently as well. The challenge is finding someone else to step to help out.

 

The "septuagenarian" never spoke as RST spokeman but rather as Secretary of the Association. It causes confusion when you have an RST board member as spokesman of another organisation.

 

Link/association with one web-site and opposition to others: the intrinsic link between RST & FF has to end, as does the playground hatred for VB/RM. These are grown men in their 40s and older, FFS. I'm sure they all have reasons for not talking to each other any longer but let's forget about "threats" or insults and move on.

Agreed.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

how can you engage with a website that has blind hatred for you. that allows lies and homophobic comment re the rst.

 

you would get more sensible debate trying to garner support on a celtc website.

[chilledbear 16]

I'm sure I was told on here that there was a set term of office.