Rangers 2 years on

[Frankie 8,199]

Frankie, I have told this story many times and make no apologies for repeating it. I was barred after just a few days on FF for what I can only describe as being reasonable and was called the most abusive names in the process. I appealed 3 times with no reply. I cannot associate myself with an organization, which by association, operates in such a dictatorial fashion, doesn't tolerate alternative opinions and allows such abuse of members.

 

I agree that more often than not a certain spokesman gets it right, however, it is clear that many people on here and other forums have had the same experience as myself and the RST is tainted by this.

 

It seems to be a common story but I'm afraid I can't pass judgement on the way MD runs his forum. I know how difficult it can be here so when you have much more traffic as FF does, then I don't envy the admin there.

[Stimpy 0]

ShoredBear

 

I really didnt want this to turn into a thread about the RST - positive or negative.

 

I appreciate you have only been there 2 years. The problems I allude to go back way before that time to Alan Harris' letter and statement of resignation. I think much of the criticism elsewhere stems from that time. While many people focus on the monetary aspects surrounding that resignation and the allegations made I have other concerns.

 

The fact that so many people within the trust allowed this situation to fester for so long is concerning. That Alan Harris was prevented from speaking out on this issue concerns me. It reeks of cronyism or a weakness to stand up to an individual who was fundamentally in the wrong. Alan Harris made some damning allegations in his statement of resignation and a decision was made within the Trust to make the response to them low key. Some wished for a far more robust response but they were were outvoted by the low key supporters.

 

The fact that the individual who was the catalyst to this problem has gone on to rise in prominence within the RST has done nothing to dispel those fears and concerns.

 

Allow me to make something clear - this is not about personal animosity. Its attempt to objectively look at the reasons why there is so much animosity towards the trust.

 

Appreciate the reply, D!

 

The Harris thing was before my time but it all stemmed from the Trust making a huge loss on the Sam English Bowl and dinners. Individual tried to cover those losses out of his own pocket but never had the funds in the first place. A mistake but none that was illegal or breached the constitution. From memory the statement the RST made was based in legal guidance. Harris apparently had issues and folk from outside of the RST say as much. You can PM if you need to hear more.

 

However, the Trust then to what it is now is completely different. Everything is new and nearly all reps are new. Mark is as influential as the next board rep. That's the honest truth.

 

Happy to hear other ideas to improve.

[Stimpy 0]

Just to clarify, I never intended to hijack this thread, so apologies. But every time I see a all for unity it tends to read the RST need to change when priorities should lie elsewhere.

 

Also, easiest way to change things is to join and use the new voting system for members. Plus you can stand at elections or simply vote. Old rhetoric but accurate nonetheless.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Just to clarify, I never intended to hijack this thread, so apologies. But every time I see a all for unity it tends to read the RST need to change when priorities should lie elsewhere.

 

Also, easiest way to change things is to join and use the new voting system for members. Plus you can stand at elections or simply vote. Old rhetoric but accurate nonetheless.

 

I know you didnt SB - I would re-iterate that my mention of Rangers Unite & The RST was not meant to be a criticism of either, just an observation and example as to how unity with a bit of compromise, would allow us to progress.

[Bluedell 5,367]

The Harris thing was before my time but it all stemmed from the Trust making a huge loss on the Sam English Bowl and dinners. Individual tried to cover those losses out of his own pocket but never had the funds in the first place. A mistake but none that was illegal or breached the constitution. From memory the statement the RST made was based in legal guidance. Harris apparently had issues and folk from outside of the RST say as much. You can PM if you need to hear more.

 

The statement that Harris had issues is unfair. The goings-on at that AGM were disgraceful and to try and put the blame onto him is uncalled for, in my opinion. There were matters about the whole thing that should have been discussed, for example the lack of disclosure in the accounts, but the members were prevented from doing so, and that was nothing to do with Harris having "issues".

 

 

RST might not be perfect but we never ever attack, slander, smear our own.

 

You sure?

[amms 0]

I find criticism of FF puzzling. It's fairly well known it belongs to one person and as you'd expect that person has a lot of influence over it, I don't believe he hides that. It's his, why shouldn't he? It's not a public service funded by tax-payers, it's not the Washington Post, it's an online version of a fanzine. If he or his admins disagree with something or someone it is their right to censor as they see fit. There are plenty of alternative online outlets for Rangers related discussion if FF isn't for you.

 

I've not posted on FF for years, I wasn't banned I simply stopped enjoying it, I disagreed with much of the sentiment being expressed and the sheer size of it made it difficult for some more reasonable posters to be heard in my opinion. That being said that mainly applies to the message-board. The articles the site publishes remain of a good standard, sometimes very good, their guy on Twitter comes across really well too and the last time I saw the printed fanzine I enjoyed it.

 

So I chose not to post on FF, in the same way I very rarely go onto RM anymore either. I enjoyed it at one time, Rangers gain was RM's loss when Rabbit left and it reached a point last year when I simply stopped enjoying it, I disagreed with much of the sentiment, content and style of the messageboard. So I left and found somewhere else. Rangersmedia, like FF, take their lead from their owner and admins, they set the tone and it flows from that, you either like it or you don't. If you don't then go elsewhere, it isn't hard.

 

I've never been on the VB site, I'd a few run-ins with a couple of them on RM a long time ago who took exception to my wishy-washy, liberal, hand-wringing attitude to something or other. That's fine, that forum is none the poorer for not having me on board, we'd disagree on stuff I'm fairly sure.

 

However none of this should prove an impediment to working together. This is what I've never understood, we don't need to agree on everything, indeed it would be really very odd if we did, that's Stepford Wives territory not football fandom. The only thing we need to agree on is wanting success for Rangers, everything else will stem from that. Having a support more closely involved with the running of the club is in the best interests of Rangers, having a support informed about the financial realities and the hard work many at the club do would also be good for us.

I fail to see how it is possible for one or a handful of people to exert undue influence over an organisation like the RST if that organisation is large. Whilst it remains small it can be dominated, if it grows then it's less likely that can happen. I guess that's where we need to come in then.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

ff is also under extreme scrutiny. they have to censor perhaps more than they would like to.

 

lets not forget they were shut down for months after a very innocuous cartoon was posted.

 

it's also a haven for yahoo infiltration that must be a nightmare to deal with.

Edited June 7, 2013 by the gunslinger

[D'Artagnan 173]

I find criticism of FF puzzling. It's fairly well known it belongs to one person and as you'd expect that person has a lot of influence over it, I don't believe he hides that. It's his, why shouldn't he? It's not a public service funded by tax-payers, it's not the Washington Post, it's an online version of a fanzine. If he or his admins disagree with something or someone it is their right to censor as they see fit. There are plenty of alternative online outlets for Rangers related discussion if FF isn't for you.

 

I've not posted on FF for years, I wasn't banned I simply stopped enjoying it, I disagreed with much of the sentiment being expressed and the sheer size of it made it difficult for some more reasonable posters to be heard in my opinion. That being said that mainly applies to the message-board. The articles the site publishes remain of a good standard, sometimes very good, their guy on Twitter comes across really well too and the last time I saw the printed fanzine I enjoyed it.

 

So I chose not to post on FF, in the same way I very rarely go onto RM anymore either. I enjoyed it at one time, Rangers gain was RM's loss when Rabbit left and it reached a point last year when I simply stopped enjoying it, I disagreed with much of the sentiment, content and style of the messageboard. So I left and found somewhere else. Rangersmedia, like FF, take their lead from their owner and admins, they set the tone and it flows from that, you either like it or you don't. If you don't then go elsewhere, it isn't hard.

 

I've never been on the VB site, I'd a few run-ins with a couple of them on RM a long time ago who took exception to my wishy-washy, liberal, hand-wringing attitude to something or other. That's fine, that forum is none the poorer for not having me on board, we'd disagree on stuff I'm fairly sure.

 

However none of this should prove an impediment to working together. This is what I've never understood, we don't need to agree on everything, indeed it would be really very odd if we did, that's Stepford Wives territory not football fandom. The only thing we need to agree on is wanting success for Rangers, everything else will stem from that. Having a support more closely involved with the running of the club is in the best interests of Rangers, having a support informed about the financial realities and the hard work many at the club do would also be good for us.

I fail to see how it is possible for one or a handful of people to exert undue influence over an organisation like the RST if that organisation is large. Whilst it remains small it can be dominated, if it grows then it's less likely that can happen. I guess that's where we need to come in then.

 

I will have to respectfully disagree amms. And the following comment is totally erroneous.

 

Rangersmedia, like FF, take their lead from their owner and admins, they set the tone and it flows from that

 

 

[amms 0]

I will have to respectfully disagree amms. And the following comment is totally erroneous.

 

In what way?

[D'Artagnan 173]

Rangersmedia do not take their lead from the site owner - and I think that comment is disrespectful to the admin guys on there - they allow a variety of opinions to flourish without censure, providing posters do not resort to personal abuse.

 

Furthermore the articles they publish as site articles reflect both sides of the debate when there are a diversity of views.