Jings - Leggoland

[Stimpy 0]

 

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.

 

Only certain online elements say this though. To be frank, and I appreciate you don't know me so can't judge and only have my word on here: There is absolutely no chance I will be anyone's yes man or little helper. On top of that the board, except three other members, are all new and have only served one year or less, myself included.

 

BD's comments are right that he serves on too many other committees. However, Mark doesn't have a normal 9-5 job and is able to attend these meetings. It's an easy fix for us and from what I can see his presence is no greater or less than that of his board position.

 

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.

 

Before my time so won't comment on past events when I am not aware of the facts. However, although the RST is not perfect, it's social media channels make it the most open group within the three fan groups. All reasonable questions (meaning questions without abuse or hyperbole) are answered. One of my aims was to make us more user friendly and it's working in small steps. We have three ways to get in contact and plenty to use it.

 

Our AGMs are public knowledge, can you say that of the other two groups?

 

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.

 

Term is two years as voted in at last year's AGM when the Trust adopted SD's new rules. Maximum term is 12 years, and I think that's too long. I could live with four years personally.

 

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.

 

Only three can be co-opted which is in line with the constitution. No changes have been made to the constitution without consulting the members at an AGM. Co-opting folk can help the board in the short term. The next AGM that individual has to be elected in by the membership.

 

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.

 

Don't recall the radio 5 live phone in. Planting stories don't work when the media refuse to discuss anything anti-Celtic. Any press release reaches the media and is mostly quoted throughout and the statements go down well with the support.

 

 

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.

 

This goes both ways: Will the smear campaigns stop?

 

That said, I do't care much for FF or people's petty personal differences. I have heard plenty from both side for and against. My low post count would prove that I don't use FF much.

 

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.

 

So now you have had your say on one fan group, will you balance it up with your say on VB's actions towards fellow Rangers fans, RM's obsessive 20 page threads on RST? Or any comment for the other two groups?

 

Cheers!

[plgsarmy 111]

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.

 

If you are saying that people judged a bid because it was backed by the RST rather than what was best for the Club then that is very sad. Of the bids we knew about, TBK's bid was the one, in our opinion, that offered the best chance for the Club's future.

 

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.

 

Viewd by whom? A handful of people on a couple of websites? The Board currently has 16 members who would find the above comments highly insulting. MD has never even been an office-bearer in the RST. Do you think we cancel meetings if Mark can't attend or defer decisions until we can check if it's okay with him? I've disagreed with Mark on many occasions and sometimes I've actually won.

 

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.

 

As stated previously, it has been RST policy, since 2008 that we put things out firstly by e-mail to members and then onto our site. If people then choose to post them on other websites they are free to do so but we normally only take questions from members. If we have to wait for whoever we were meeting to approve minutes then so be it. As Bluedell says, it's either that or no 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.

 

I wouldn't have any objection, in principle, to this although I think 4 years is too short. Having said that, I would say that, on average, most people don't stay that long. Sometimes it can take over other aspects of your life.

 

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.

 

I'm not aware of us having done that. We were always very careful to keep the elected/ co-opted mix to what we were allowed under the rules and last year we changed to the Supporters Direct model rules. This was approved at our AGM in 2011.

 

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.

 

It's an area that most of us don't really want involved in if truth be told. It can affect both your family and working life and not in a good way. David Edgar will tell you about that. If we can get more volunteers to do it then great and we will give them all the training they need but it isn't easy. We already do have contacts with Bear-friendly journos, most of which you won't hear about. As for the 5 Live comments, I don't recall who went on and whether it was as an official RST response to being asked but it was clear at the time that Rangers fans were being accused. I do hope you're not holding Jeanette Findlay up as someone whose behaviour we should aspire to.

 

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 told you our policy, I can't say much more. We don't have hatred, playground or otherwise, of any website. There are a small number of posters on both these websites who have tried to smear both the RST and individual Board members by speading lies and innuendo. They hide behind monikers but I I know who most of them are, even although I've never met most of them. I don't even hate them, I'm just sorry that they feel that they have to act this way. As for forgetting threats and insults and moving on, I find it difficult to forget someone wanting to pump carbon minoxide into a room I was in but perhaps that's just me. However, I blame an individual for that, not a website.

 

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.

 

If you can point to the posts where either Gunslinger or me said those words then please do so. Post numbers will suffice

 

Having said all that thanks for your comments

[the gunslinger 3,366]

the rst get it spot on on the net. they put out the info AND let all the sites have at it according to their rules.

 

as for engaging rm and vb no one should be subjected to that. they have all the same info ff does what they do with its up to them.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I said its perfectly possible to disagree with the rst on ff and it is.

 

if you disagree with lies innuendo and homophobia then of course you will be banned.

[3909 04 0]

I said its perfectly possible to disagree with the rst on ff and it is.

 

if you disagree with lies innuendo and homophobia then of course you will be banned.

 

What's this homophobia thing? It's been mentioned several times; what am I missing?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What's this homophobia thing? It's been mentioned several times; what am I missing?

 

check an rst thread on rm they love a bit of rampant homophobia.

 

indeed one was so bad its the only thread i've ever seen chopped on rm.

 

quite a feat of infamy.

[3909 04 0]

Only certain online elements say this though. To be frank, and I appreciate you don't know me so can't judge and only have my word on here: There is absolutely no chance I will be anyone's yes man or little helper. On top of that the board, except three other members, are all new and have only served one year or less, myself included.

 

BD's comments are right that he serves on too many other committees. However, Mark doesn't have a normal 9-5 job and is able to attend these meetings. It's an easy fix for us and from what I can see his presence is no greater or less than that of his board position.

 

Before my time so won't comment on past events when I am not aware of the facts. However, although the RST is not perfect, it's social media channels make it the most open group within the three fan groups. All reasonable questions (meaning questions without abuse or hyperbole) are answered. One of my aims was to make us more user friendly and it's working in small steps. We have three ways to get in contact and plenty to use it.

 

Our AGMs are public knowledge, can you say that of the other two groups?

 

Term is two years as voted in at last year's AGM when the Trust adopted SD's new rules. Maximum term is 12 years, and I think that's too long. I could live with four years personally.

 

Only three can be co-opted which is in line with the constitution. No changes have been made to the constitution without consulting the members at an AGM. Co-opting folk can help the board in the short term. The next AGM that individual has to be elected in by the membership.

 

Don't recall the radio 5 live phone in. Planting stories don't work when the media refuse to discuss anything anti-Celtic. Any press release reaches the media and is mostly quoted throughout and the statements go down well with the support.

 

This goes both ways: Will the smear campaigns stop?

 

That said, I do't care much for FF or people's petty personal differences. I have heard plenty from both side for and against. My low post count would prove that I don't use FF much.

 

So now you have had your say on one fan group, will you balance it up with your say on VB's actions towards fellow Rangers fans, RM's obsessive 20 page threads on RST? Or any comment for the other two groups?

 

Cheers!

 

Thanks for the answers! My views, as requested:

 

VB: no group should ever threaten other Rangers fans. It's simply doing our enemies' work for them. I'll have no part of that. But several of the most die-hard Rangers fans I've ever met are on VB and I know the site has a place, reflecting the more hardline wing of the Rangers support.

 

RM: a "curate's egg" of a site. Several good threads and a lot of anger-fuelled rants. I would say it seems to be populated almost exclusively by banned FFers, many of whom tell wholly believable tales of being banned for the most minor infractions.

 

The Assembly: a spoiler group set up by the club to spike the guns of the fledgling Trust. I don't know their top guys but all I can say is Andy Kerr was absurdly irresponsible last year and Ross Blyth made a total dick of himself on Real Radio when he obediently read SDM's prepared script to attack the RST's We Deserve Better campaign. An irrelevance.

 

The Association: I can't help, err, associating this group with their rather hapless spokesman, John MacMillan. I know more about NARSA, where I have friends, but whom I feel can allow themselves to be too easily influenced by their proximity to senior figures at the club, such as Bain.

 

BTW if it was you who suggested we might share a cold beer, the answer is any time. :-)

[bossy 0]

I think you will find that RM is not populated by banned FFers but that many of them are in a self-imposed exile.

 

There are also quite a few, myself included, who post on several Rangers message boards.

[3909 04 0]

Plgsarmy, some answers for you:

 

If you are saying that people judged a bid because it was backed by the RST rather than what was best for the Club then that is very sad. Of the bids we knew about, TBK's bid was the one, in our opinion, that offered the best chance for the Club's future.

 

My point was & is the backing for TBK emanating from FF/RST's best-known figure was absurdly OTT and raised suspicions of his motives.

 

Viewd by whom? A handful of people on a couple of websites? The Board currently has 16 members who would find the above comments highly insulting. MD has never even been an office-bearer in the RST. Do you think we cancel meetings if Mark can't attend or defer decisions until we can check if it's okay with him? I've disagreed with Mark on many occasions and sometimes I've actually won.

 

Glad to hear it, keep it up. Don't let one man dominate proceedings, it's unhealthy.

 

As stated previously, it has been RST policy, since 2008 that we put things out firstly by e-mail to members and then onto our site. If people then choose to post them on other websites they are free to do so but we normally only take questions from members. If we have to wait for whoever we were meeting to approve minutes then so be it. As Bluedell says, it's either that or no meetings.

 

Be as open & honest with all members as you can is my advice.

 

I wouldn't have any objection, in principle, to this although I think 4 years is too short. Having said that, I would say that, on average, most people don't stay that long. Sometimes it can take over other aspects of your life.

 

Again, staying any longer leads to questions of long-standing board members' motivation for doing so.

 

I'm not aware of us having done that. We were always very careful to keep the elected/ co-opted mix to what we were allowed under the rules and last year we changed to the Supporters Direct model rules. This was approved at our AGM in 2011.

 

This refers to MacMillan being foisted on the RST members, which was some years ago.

 

It's an area that most of us don't really want involved in if truth be told. It can affect both your family and working life and not in a good way. David Edgar will tell you about that. If we can get more volunteers to do it then great and we will give them all the training they need but it isn't easy. We already do have contacts with Bear-friendly journos, most of which you won't hear about. As for the 5 Live comments, I don't recall who went on and whether it was as an official RST response to being asked but it was clear at the time that Rangers fans were being accused. I do hope you're not holding Jeanette Findlay up as someone whose behaviour we should aspire to.

 

It was Stephen Smith. There was nothing wrong with what he said on the show but he should have answered 5Live's request for a quote by directing them to Strathclyde Police or Special Branch as they are better-placed to comment on terrorist matters than the RST. jeanette Findlay is a poisonous snake but Celtic's PR runs rings ours, including the two Trusts.

 

I've told you our policy, I can't say much more. We don't have hatred, playground or otherwise, of any website. There are a small number of posters on both these websites who have tried to smear both the RST and individual Board members by speading lies and innuendo. They hide behind monikers but I I know who most of them are, even although I've never met most of them. I don't even hate them, I'm just sorry that they feel that they have to act this way. As for forgetting threats and insults and moving on, I find it difficult to forget someone wanting to pump carbon minoxide into a room I was in but perhaps that's just me. However, I blame an individual for that, not a website.

 

I've stated my policy on Rangers fans threatening other Rangers fans. I detest ex-friends fighting, life is way too short, and I've offered several times to broker a peace between the principal combatants. I would have to say it's Mr D who is less keen than the other side on burying the hatchet and moving on.

 

If you can point to the posts where either Gunslinger or me said those words then please do so. Post numbers will suffice

 

You could have a look at #82, #94 & #104 for a taste of GS' views of FF. Then try #129 for a reminder of your views on the subject of the RST sans MD...

 

Thanks also for your answers. I respect the effort you personally have put into the Trust over the years and I wish you nothing but the best.

[3909 04 0]

I think you will find that RM is not populated by banned FFers but that many of them are in a self-imposed exile.

 

There are also quite a few, myself included, who post on several Rangers message boards.

 

Fair points.