Union City Blue

Fill yer boots mate! Poll away!!!! TBH I'd vote against a ban, because Bears need to be aware of what is being written about them and our club. Just my opinion.

You want to ban links and copy/pastes?

That's fair enough Shroomz and, as I say, being sceptical is understandable. The ball is with Martin Bain. You can lead a horse to water and all that....

These are good ideas for a kick-off. Every Rangers fan has the ability to do this sitting at their pc. That said, circulation figures do not necessarily prevent someone causing trouble. He wasn't exactly writing for the NOTW the last time.

My reading of the 'Rangers public opinion' is that people are sceptical. This is down to Rangers' past record. But AJ is here now he's Bain's new boss. They may have a discussion and new input may result in a new approach. There's only one way to find out. See above mate. What I would say, it that feel free to wonder about the RST's motives if you like, but I can assure you that this is not something being latched onto on a self-serving basis. People in the Trust have worked hard on the Spiers issue and people I've spoken to genuinely think "enough is enough" and know fine well what he's doing. Can't speak for the Assembly. Unfortunately, the fans have no official voice when it comes to the decisions Rangers takes so the best that can be done in the meantime is to make representations on behalf of members and let those members know what they're doing. If there are better and more likely avenues that supporters groups can take then hopefully somebody will let me know what they think these might be.

Despite what some would have you believe, it's a delicate situation because the consequences could for or against you. The first and next step being urged by the RST and RSA is for the club to shift its mindset from 'passive and helpless victim', to something which is in keeping with its strength and the wishes of the supporters. That is the first thing that's required and that is the first aim. When this is achieved, then hopfully the club would consult with the supporters groups and discuss the various options, get input and so on, then decide what to do. That is how fans can have an influence over the decision-making process at the club. That is actually the RST's strategic goal; for the supporters to have a voice in the decisions the club makes. Manipulating situations for political advantage is an ancient and black art. A lot goes on behind the scenes and this relies on effective access, relationships, coalitions and alliences. Rangers FC has (but appears not to fully utilise) all of these things well enough, so the extent to which these exist behind the scenes will influence what 'can be done'. Only Rangers knows exactly how the land lies. Not avoiding your question - the top half of this post is the main thing at this stage in my opinion.

Bear in mind Schrooz that the RSA and RST have not directly asked the club to ban Spiers. They've asked that the club agree that "enough is enough" and (effectively) invite them to do something. Smart football clubs headed by powerful people can do various things on various levels - they have power, influence and sanction available. Even Rangers have this despite the generally-acknowledged lop-sidedness.

Because the contemporary debate includes both Rangers and celtic and I was talking about what gets lets behind. It's entirely legitimate to mention them in this context, even if our priority is Rangers.

Yes, very funny. I was asking if you'd care to share your opinion on the consequences of what you advocate. I don't see how else to evaluate your reasoning without talking it through, seeing as I can't read your mind. I agree it would make journalists & editors take notice. At the same time, it opens up the possibility of Rangers being victimised on a whole new level. If you are confident that is not the case, or if you're confident Rangers has the means and the will to carry and win a sustained fight, then I agree we should just ban the bastard. Look, not a single question!

Don't think any of us gives a monkeys about celtic tbh. I also detest these constant "old firm" references as though we are one and the same. Having said that, if they closed down tomorrow - as things stand - and failed to reappear I'd say their absence would signal a slow downward trend for Rangers on lots of levels until we were left with a core support of ... well I don't know how many. Any two-team competition would be in the same situation.

What would you see happening with Spiers if, for example, he was banned from Ibrox (which I assume you are advocating)? What would he do and what other effects would it have?

(yes and celtic) Is everyone comfortable with all this talk of breakaways to undefined competitions in unspecified lands playing against unidentified opponents? I'm not really, to be honest. I can obviously see the advantages (i.e. money) but while everyone's creaming over the concept I just hope that the fans and the game in this country won't be left behind. And I include Rangers fans in that. This stinks of business wanting what's best for business so I hope that everybody keeps their thinking balanced as we move down this road.

Picking this up a little late, but I can see where Andy's coming from here. It's a question of tactics. Some say ignore Spiers - he's a nothing in a world which is getting bored of the sectarianism debate; we can cope and nobody's listening anyway. Others say ban him - don't allow him to breeze into Ibrox Stadium and proceed to stiffen us in print, on-line and over the airwaves the next day, regardless what that might cause. Some say make him look foolish - say something which (in Andy's terms) equates to a "yeah yeah yeah, we've noticed Graham's always doing this isn't he and it's becoming tiresome" line. Let it be known that our patience is wearing thin. All things considered, I'd say there is a pretty good argument for Rangers to start with the latter option, as tempting as it is to just boot him in the baws and tell him to fuck off. It would act as a reasonable warning which, if ignored, leaves the door open for more substantial action.

I agree with that. It's bound to be a European set-up when it comes along, perhaps on a "regional" qualifying basis or something, which would perhaps allow Scottish teams to hook up with English teams in some way. If clubs are just allowed to play wherever they like, the big guns will gravitate towards each other. I do think the cluture in British football is not to go too far with this though, which is why I see some sort of half-way house. England especially (despite the rampant commercialism) is very proud and protective of its Association Football, hence the reason why the FA Cup is still a big deal down there. Just my take on it.

All the evidence suggests that Rangers' view is that, whatever people think, the often-hostile media is just one of those things. They have not been prepared to do anything so far so unless there is a change of direction, the same will happen here; nothing. AJ talked last week about the benefits of being a long-distance Chairman - stating that it enabled him to be free of the minutiae and think both tactically and strategically. That being so, it would be reasonable to assume that the media issue is one which won't tempt him from the sidelines. He may actually not have the relationships in Scotland to have much influence anyway, although I obviously can't qualify that. So it'll probably be down to Martin Bain to handle again. ... zzzzz.... But, hey, you never know.

MF, thank you for your input. Bear in mind, I did not "volunteer" this information! I was asked directly, then again and then again on RM. Then I had a private conversation with an admin over there and clarified what was being asked. Then you copied the request and indirectly asked me again in here. So I was merely being courteous. Before I actually do move on, I would like to ask you to contemplate in more depth the realities of collaborative working - something which is obviously dear to your heart. Firstly; when you get a new job, or join a new circle, or become a member of a new group of any kind, the way to deal with underlying internal issues is firstly to understand them from as many perspectives as possible. This takes time for an individual in a group of 20. Rushing in is not always the best way. For example I have already floated one new idea in the Trust, but due to my lack of understanding of all the under-lying issues, I have realised that my proposal needs to be developed further so I have changed my mind for the time being. I felt a bit silly, but it reminded me not to forget previous lessons I have learned. Secondly; when you wish to change something which is already established but do not have legitimate power to do so, then you need to persuade others to listen and adapt. This takes time for an individual in a group of 20. For example I have already submitted one new idea in the trust, have received a warm response but also some suggestions and other feedback - also not everyone necessarily agrees with me. So I am doing some work which will enable me to refine and improve the idea, so that when I present it formally it is more likely to have broader support and therefore be adopted. These examples are two of several which I am working on at the moment covering areas as broad as my expertise allows me to. But I also recognise it is a democratic group and it is not possible to agree on everything, and that's just a fact of life - and it's absolutely fine. So instead of voicing your frustration that I am not sharing my developing ideas with the internet yet, may I respectfully suggest that you chew over what might be the best ways to get things done. Building relationships, trust and confidence in a new group is an important feature of collaborative working. I think most current and future members of the Trust will see exactly where I'm coming from, so I am comfortable with what I'm saying and doing. Sorry to disappoint you once more, but there we have it.

Seeing as I'm being asked some personal background information, I will offer those who are interested the courtesy of a reply on this occasion. Firstly, I'm a season ticket holder at Ibrox, a (quite small) shareholder via Gersave and I have been a loyal Rangers fan for my whole life. I have also been a member of the Trust for maybe 3-4 years. As one or two of the good people of RM and GersNet who are ex-board members will be able to testify (if they choose to), I was not around at all during the comings-and-goings last year and in fact it took me quite a while to actually realise that something had gone on! I was simply a member of the Trust and someone who tried to keep up-to-date with things on-line. So it was a bit of a mystery to me and even now I don't think I fully undertand it. To be honest I am not really interested in the ongoing fascination with it - there's nothing I can do, I wasn't there, I had nothing to do with it and I didn't know any of the people on a face to face basis back then. It's in the past as far as I'm concerned and I don't intend to inherit it on here or anywhere else. I am only interested in moving forward. That is my position on-line, in real life and within the Trust. As I indicated, I have been on-line in the world of Rangers for a number of years. I have a log-in for all of the main Rangers sites and I read and post to varying degrees. In my opinion each has their own strengths and weaknesses, but what they do have in common is a platform for Rangers fans to discuss all things Rangers. I am not remotely interested in inter-website rivalry, promoting one over the other or expressing favouritism in any way. I am on GersNet today as Rangers fan and a member of the Trust. In terms of the Trust evolving and moving forward, I have several ideas - some of which would be best developed internally (which I'm sure most people will understand). What I can say, is that firstly we should be looking to engage or re-engage with as many people who are 'instinctive' Trust supporters as possible. There appears to be a lot of latent support for the concept of the Trust, but a portion of people have melted away or become dis-connected for various reasons. So we need to work out what it is that would get people involved again. I know there are lots of different reason out there and that is part of the challenge. The reason this is important is that numbers provide strength, and we will be a stronger, independent, meaningful voice the more members there are. It's not about getting numbers for the sake of it - it's about strengthening our voice in good times and bad. We might also continue recent improvements relating to member communication and so on, so that when people do join, they feel that they belong to something worthwhile enough to re-join when the time arrives. That is really important. And by communication, I mean two-way communication. There are a bunch of other things which I hope to contribute to the Trust which, as I say, have to be presented, debated and developed. The organisation has done a good job all-in-all in my opinion and there is definitely something there to build on. But constructive criticism and fresh ideas are always healthy and every organisation (no matter how effective) can improve and move forward. So that's where I am at the moment, I hope that helps. Cheers. * hopefully we can stop talking about me now *

Loud and clear.

Thanks for your thoughts mainflyer. Obviously you have a very entrenched position, which is probably why (already and in one post!) you have accused me of; masking the truth, behaving in an ugly manner, insulting you, spinning and manipulating opinion, whining and implied that I am dishonest. I don't appear to have much going for me actually. Quite a start, eh?! Also, what I would ask our small but intelligent GersNet membership to appreciate is that the power of suggestion is not necessarily an above-board tactic. For example you say I have an "assigned task (oh yes)". When in fact, I do not. It's the easiest thing in the world to chuck things in there and I hope if anyone's interested that people watch out for that - particularly you, seeing as it was you that did it. If I don't counter it, will people believe it? Is planting the seed enough? Or do I need to spend portions of my days correcting your every point instead of doing things which might be more productive for Rangers fans, Rangers FC and the Trust? The other difficulty is dealing with conflicting criticism. My example this time is that Bluedell's assertion is that the RST thinks that doing all the things you ask of me above in places apart from FF is pointless. So I explained that that isn't the RST's position. Then you chip in (on a thread where I have already listened and posted that I have taken points on board) telling me I should be doing exactly what I'm doing! You don't say that you recognise I'm doing it - you imply that I'm not. I welcome your suggestions about what I should be doing to "ressurect the reputation of the RST", so I thank you for them. You may also be surprised to hear that from your list of things, I can see merit in your many of your suggestions. Tell you what; I'll forget that we got off to a bad start and we'll see how things go. You OK with that?

As you said yourself Bluedell, due to the personal hostility of (a small but motivated, energetic and vocal number) of contributors it's not easy for some people who may feel themselves that they have been subject to vitriol or whatever to engage in certain places. I think most people understand that. I didn't know about the fanzine issue you raise but I will check that out. As I said, I'm fairly sure the roots of this issue can be traced to the personal hostility towards some people in the Trust in certain other places. You've got to admit that some of it comes across as personal and some of it is below the belt - I know I'm not alone in thinking that and there are non-Trust members/supporters who agree and find it distasteful. At the same time, some people don't post on FF due to feeling unwelcome and getting what they perceive to be abuse - the perceived difference being that on FF you get banned. But as I said before, that's up to Mark Dingwall, not the Trust. I suppose the question is whether one decides to take the personal flak for the sake of the organisation or not, and that might depend on the degree of the offence perceived to be meant and taken. Not a very nice choice to have to make as a volunteer when we are all Rangers fans on Rangers boards. If that's how Bearwood feels, that's up to him but (& because) it's a personal decision. It's his own time and he is free to choose where to concentrate his energies. It's not the Trust's policy or 'position' that other sites are a waste of time. That's why I'm here, my friend. But much more important that that; I can multi-quote now, so a big thanks to Shroomz!

You've got the battle fever on I see mate?

Craig, my sincere thanks but there is no need to apologise for associating the two. They are associated via a degree over over-lapping membership and the fact that the owner of FF is also one of the 20 Trust board members. That is just fact. My point is that (as far as I know) only 1 of 20 Trust board members moderates FF. If Mark wants to chop/ban/edit or whatever, that's up to him. It's his site and the Trust doesn't ask or tell him what to do, so the organisation shouldn't be accountable either. Incidentally, I post there quite a bit and I'm not dissing the thing at all. I'm just making a very clear distinction between FF and the RST. Seriously. I am a member of the Trust and am now actively involved in trying to further the aims of the organisation and ultimately Rangers FC. I'm happy to discuss this now with you because you are being reasonable, but there's absolutely no way I'm going to explain or justify FF's editorial decision-making going forward because it has absolutely nothing to do with me, I am not consulted and it is not something the organisation I am involved with has any degree of say over. I hope that's understandable and acceptable to everyone! Back to the issues, I take your original points on board and I hope to be able to debate them with you in a reasonable manner going forward. Cheers :cheers: UCB.

Guys - one point I would like to emphasise is that the Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust. I would not dispute that there is overlap in membership but I know for certain that some Trust Board members would not be known on FF and that there are people on FF who do not support the Trust. The Trust does not moderate FF. I believe that some of the admins there are not particular trust supporters and I believe that several are not members either. I fully understand the cross-overs and common denominators and how things might be perceived, but I just want to make the point that FF is not the Trust and its incorrect to view the Trust solely on that basis.

Yes, the RST is an appropriate organisation. Definitely. The process of elections etc is an unresolved question, I agree. If Rangers supporters controlled the club, then it would be definitely be required to have a full and open election amongst fans, especialy ST holders. Helping to control the club is arguably a little different in the sense that if an organisation seeks and gains influence through its members then naturally the organisation would want the primary say, directly on a one-member-one-vote basis or via its Board. Joining the organisation would enable people to exercise and voice their opinions, although that may not allow everyone to be included for one reason or another. Getting into detail here, but basically I'm saying I totally subscribe to the idea of democracy although I recognise that appropriate mechanisms would have to be put in place to ensure its delivery. I fully appreciate that we have 40,000 ST holders (I am one myself) and that we/they are crucially important. Yes I alse agree that sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do. My personal opinion though is, given all that has happened and is happening to our club, that the argument for doing nothing has expired - unless we are happy to just take whatever mystery millionaire we get. Which was the essence of the last half of the OP.

Kings of the Castle 1 v Rhats in the flats 0 Naismith. He's due it.