BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) So basically you agree with me that your previous definition was incorrect and the fact that it has a primary purpose, but that is therefore not it's sole purpose. With the greatest respect, you may have held these positions but your posts are contradictory. I'd also add that while you were on the board of the RST, the RST got involved in other issues. From memory this included the WDB campaign, campaigning against the use of the H word, commenting on ticket pricing, player bans etc. BD, as I think you know I was by no means in control of the RST media policy at that time; it was handled by David Edgar and Mr Dingwall. I struggled to get proper financial controls and an election process in place against those who argued "we've always done it this way". I agree there were comments made about things that so far as I was concerned were outside its remit. I have already referred to it being forced to withdraw its comments about the famine song and I can publish the letter from SD to prove the point if necessary. As I said I also prevented comment on the OBA. I do not recollect comment on ticket pricing, player bans or even the price of pies; but given the inter-relationship with FF, it would not surprise me if you could show such examples. In my opinion, the RST would do well to concentrate on its core objective of promoting fan influence/onwership; it seems to me that that is a big enough task is it not? Edited February 6, 2014 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Three PR experts said the RST social media policy was spot on. Btw, this was flung at me on email and no one showed proof, where did the RST Twitter ever say #spivsout? Goodwin wanted to be spokesperson for FoH and Pars Unted and they knocked him back too. His proposal which was supported by the guys doing the CIC was laughed at by PR experts. They had to be convinced it was a serious proposal before commenting from a professional perspective. Moreover, a neutral observer, who's very respected on here and across the support, warned one CIC committee guy not to push the media proposal, before the proposal was ever presented to the RST board. Go figure! Iain, by all means promote the CIC but if you're going to be disingenuous then I will start commenting....commenting on behaviour of certain individuals too. I'm letting folk make their own mind up by observing but I'm not sitting back reading that pish. You were caught lying on Saturday with posts on FF, don't ruin your credibility as you're a very decent guy with loads to offer. I would be interested to know if Goodwin's offers were made as an employee of SD, which would seem quite incredible or in his parallel self-employed role with his own company? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I find it incredible that SD were threatening to ban RST over the WDYGH chant, but have allowed Jeanette Findlay and the Celtic Trust free reign with their continuous pro-terrorist agenda over many, many yeras. Personally I'd have told SD to do one. The Trust's published statement did not reflect the legal position in the summer of 2010. As I said I can publish the SD letter in full for clarification and my advice to the Board at the time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Goodwin emailed the chairman with concerns over a headline and not what was said. So myself and Gordon collated statements from other trusts which were all on Rangers, and sweet fuck all to do with their core objective. Guess what, Goodwin never commented on the facts presented. He ignored us and let it go as we asked for proof of where he had challenged all other trusts for commenting on other clubs, against the rules btw, and that they only commented on Fan ownership. Juts for clarification, my reference was to events in 2010; long before Mr Goowin was employed by SDS. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It is though. The views of the Rangers community are being sought. That doesn't mean it's competition for the Trust or the formation of a new fans group. It's a proposal to bang heads, get all fans together and working towards one common goal. If it doesn't get the support initially from all sections then it won't be progressed. Mark is trying to make this look like some anti-Trust exercise when that isn't the case. I continue to be a member of the RST - I believe in it, and I think the people on board are capable of representing my views, but I think we have to explore fresh ways to bring more of the support to fan ownership. I've come over from FF specifically to get a bit of clarity on this. It was in short supply over there. Implicit in what you've been saying seems to be that the RST 'brand' having too much baggage to act as a vehicle for fan share ownership. Or am I misreading it? Otherwise I can't see why any scheme couldn't have been accommodated under the RST. And if so, why not just say it? If the RST has become so divisive that too many won't touch it then so be it but surely it would be better to just come out and say it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I've come over from FF specifically to get a bit of clarity on this. It was in short supply over there.Implicit in what you've been saying seems to be that the RST 'brand' having too much baggage to act as a vehicle for fan share ownership. Or am I misreading it? Otherwise I can't see why any scheme couldn't have been accommodated under the RST. And if so, why not just say it? If the RST has become so divisive that too many won't touch it then so be it but surely it would be better to just come out and say it? Welcome Oleg. Some but not all people on here seem to view RST as devalued/discredited by a series of events over the years and the fact that two of those who were in exective positions when said events occured are still in place. Others champion it as all things to all Rangers fans. At the moment some but again not all seem to be casting doubt on the status of the BuyRangers scheme and question whether RST now has the expertise to run it within the law. It is all about opinions and at least on here you will not get banned for taking one side or the other! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I've come over from FF specifically to get a bit of clarity on this. It was in short supply over there.Implicit in what you've been saying seems to be that the RST 'brand' having too much baggage to act as a vehicle for fan share ownership. Or am I misreading it? Otherwise I can't see why any scheme couldn't have been accommodated under the RST. And if so, why not just say it? If the RST has become so divisive that too many won't touch it then so be it but surely it would be better to just come out and say it? I think TWWC made the point earlier in the thread about how he (and I assume his colleagues) felt this scheme would be better set aside from any existing group to allow both to conduct their business more efficiently. See post #207 of yesterday: http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?61608-Supporters-Direct-chief-calls-on-Rangers-fans-to-unite&p=463674&viewfull=1#post463674 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 In my opinion, the RST would do well to concentrate on its core objective of promoting fan influence/onwership; it seems to me that that is a big enough task is it not? The RST has always been more than just its core objective. That's why many joined it. There's no reason why it has to limit itself to that if it has the resources for it (it may not at the moment). There have been occasions that it has taken its eye off the ball of its core objective, particularly as the other stuff can be a lot more sexy, but that in itself, should not preclude it from getting involved elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The RST has always been more than just its core objective. That's why many joined it. There's no reason why it has to limit itself to that if it has the resources to i (it may not at the moment). There have been occasions that it has taken its eye off the ball of its core objective, particularly as the other stuff can be a lot more sexy, but that in itself, should not preclude it from getting involved elsewhere. Can I just say that the Trust were never more sexy than when I was on the board... "Those were the days, my friend..." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The Trust's published statement did not reflect the legal position in the summer of 2010. As I said I can publish the SD letter in full for clarification and my advice to the Board at the time. I don't think that anyone's doubting what you are saying, and I also don't think that you should publish private RST correspondence. As for the legal position, this isn't the thread for me to vent my feelings on that (again). 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.