Rangers Supporters Trust 'suspend spokesman over improper conduct'

[Hildy 0]

This.......

 

 

 

 

 

The Rangers board will be bolstered with the news that a major plank of the Requisitioner campaign – the Rangers Supporters Trust – has serious problems of its own to deal with.

 

With allegations of hacked emails and possible FCA involvement, along with several Trust members resigning in protest at what is going on, my understanding is that the very future of the RST could be at stake.

 

There are some good people and bluenoses in the RST but it is becoming increasingly obvious that these folks have been badly let down by certain leaders, particularly in the very public backing of the Requisitioner bid.

 

I know that some RST members who back the board are horrified that this leadership has brought the RST to a place where its members are deemed rebels and, should the board carry the day at the AGM, it is a foregone conclusion that the fan group will be given pariah status by the club. RST members joined the organisation to help bring about change, not to become an outlaw band.

 

How ironic that an organisation which has been so critical of the Rangers board in terms of accountability and transparency now finds itself mired in controversy over similar issues.

 

This RST member is perfectly relaxed about being part of a group that is detested by a rogue regime at Rangers.

[Frankie 8,148]

This RST member is perfectly relaxed about being part of a group that is detested by a rogue regime at Rangers.

 

Going by the votes on the RST poll, so would most other it seems.

 

As well as most of the responders to the poll on our main site.

[ranger_syntax 3,765]

You are entitled to your opinion.

As anyone who knows me will tell you I have no love for the dictator on FF but there are other good people at the RST who are embroiled in this through no fault of their own.

It is for that reason that I will not name anyone.

 

It's fair enough not to name anyone although people will presumably be able to find out for themselves through any records that the RST makes.

 

Perhaps later when we can scrutinise any records that the RST publish we can form an opinion on how transparent the RST is.

 

I was a member of the RST in the past and bought into the principal behind it.

Unfortunately it has become a vehicle to be abused by one in particular and sadly I fear that this may be one scandal too many for the Trust.

 

I'm one at present and this is because I'm in favour of fan ownership.

 

There are no shortage of people lining up to criticise and predict the imminent downfall of the RST. This completely misses the point of an organisation like the RST. It is only going to be what the members make it. If each critic of the RST actually joined and made an effort to change it then there is no reason why the RST could not be a different organisation. But they don't and they don't set up an alternative either. What should we conclude about the sincerity of such criticism? Personally I'm sceptical about anybody who claims to favour fan ownership and expresses that only by criticism of the RST and Mark Dingwall.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

However it is strange that the RST website no longer lists the board members, something I commented on a few weeks ago.

 

That is something that I also noticed a good while back and found it extremely strange. I can't believe it's unintentional since it would have taken some action to remove that part of the information on the site. Has this occurred since the Trust AGM? If so it is definitely a breach of the rules because it is incumbent on the Trust to publish the results of the Board elections.

 

I would need to do some research but I am fairly sure that if it is not a breach of SD rules to publish the names of the current office bearers at least if not the full board list then it would certainly be a breach of the principles of the rules, because the co-op is all about open government, proper elections etc. I can't think of any reason why it would be in the interests of the Trust not to publish the names of the board members.

 

In any event I think that any member would be entitled to call on the Trust to publish the names of the current board members and to state the names of any who have stood down voluntarily or otherwise.

 

Any investigation into allegations of wrongdoing SHOULD be internal but the results should be published after the parties concerned have been informed so as to maintain confidence in the society.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Nice attempt at a cover up. Nothing to see here move along.

This has nothing to do with our AGM and everything to do with serious allegations (possibly criminal) made against one man.

The claims have been made by other board members not anyone outwith the RST.

And for the record there have been 3 resignations so far from the RST board over this.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good cover up.

 

You may have better or more detailed information than me, but it could be that not all resignations are related to this latest issue (I'm not denying that some will probably be).

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The board of the RST would like to inform you that we are currently dealing with an internal matter that has unfortunately entered the public domain. We assure you that we are still working in the best interest of our membership and will inform you of any decisions taken once due process has been followed. The board members involved voluntarily removed themselves from Trust duties until this situation is resolved.

 

We would also like to assure you that the Trust board remains focussed and committed to our goals. We hope to announce the results of our AGM poll in the coming days.

 

This is a pathetic statement that begs more questions than it answers and therefore adds to the speculation and further weakens the credibility of the Trust.

 

They would have been better to say nothing.

[Bluedell 5,329]

This is a pathetic statement that begs more questions than it answers and therefore adds to the speculation and further weakens the credibility of the Trust.

 

They would have been better to say nothing.

 

They had to issue some sort of statement. I have some sympathy with them as they have to be careful what they say prior to any formal proceedings.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Going by the votes on the RST poll, so would most other it seems.

 

As well as most of the responders to the poll on our main site.

 

A poll on ff has over 70 percent supporting a boycott

[bluebear54 0]

This.......

 

 

 

 

 

The Rangers board will be bolstered with the news that a major plank of the Requisitioner campaign – the Rangers Supporters Trust – has serious problems of its own to deal with.

 

With allegations of hacked emails and possible FCA involvement, along with several Trust members resigning in protest at what is going on, my understanding is that the very future of the RST could be at stake.

 

There are some good people and bluenoses in the RST but it is becoming increasingly obvious that these folks have been badly let down by certain leaders, particularly in the very public backing of the Requisitioner bid.

 

I know that some RST members who back the board are horrified that this leadership has brought the RST to a place where its members are deemed rebels and, should the board carry the day at the AGM, it is a foregone conclusion that the fan group will be given pariah status by the club. RST members joined the organisation to help bring about change, not to become an outlaw band.

 

How ironic that an organisation which has been so critical of the Rangers board in terms of accountability and transparency now finds itself mired in controversy over similar issues.

 

McMurdo uses the same techniques as some other posts I've read across the forums. I find unverified auto-suggestion to be very transparent, and in my case it engenders an intense dislike against whoever has written it.

His latest blog about Ally (which is an ineptly hidden threat) is about as low as anyone could get and is full of auto-suggestion and unverified quotes.

You just wonder why McMurdo himself doesn't bother posting on the forums to get his point across. He's missing a magic trick there.

[bluebear54 0]

A poll on ff has over 70 percent supporting a boycott

 

It's FF Slinger, so not representative of the whole support. The red card display is probably more indicative of what lies ahead in the future if the AGM goes the way of the Board.

That they can't see that as inevitable is strange. Perhaps, their confidence leads them to believe that Toxic and Merlin can dissuade the fans with carrots and sticks.