plgsarmy
-
Posts
1,014 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Everything posted by plgsarmy
-
You know Frankie, I've thought a lot about responding to this all day and now I've decided to. You cannot categorically say anything is a lie unless you are personally involved or you have knowledge to refute it. I consider you to be a decent person who, above all, cares about our Club and it's future (a bit like I view myself:spl:). You have to accept though that people who you have sat round a table with and perhaps trusted don't always have the same principles. Let's take, for example, the property thing. VB have been allowed on RM to post insinuations that MD owns these properties in the city centre and even states that a Trust Board meeting was held there where people were sitting on boxes. Where did this information come from, particularly regarding the Board meeting? It must have come from someone who was there. This is used to imply that MD makes so much money from the Rangers supporters that he can afford to own premises in a prime Glasgow location. Absolute nonsense, the offices were owned by a friend who let him use it for storage. I would normally go on to RM to refute these allegations but as you well know I am banned. I have never had the courtesy of being told why I was banned but verbally I was told 'Scott didn't like what you were saying about fake strips', despite the fact I hadn't said anything but we better not go down that route, eh? I noticed though that tonight someone has posted on RM that I am a 'proven liar'. It really is pathetic.
-
Why not repeat the question then I'll know what you're talking about? So, when VB stated that the RST made a profit of �£20K last year and a loss this year, was that a fact? Did they strive for the truth despite the accounts being audited by professionals?
-
What question was that Maineflyer, perhaps I missed it? As for VB, I'm sure there are many committed Rangers fans on there but many of their posts about the RST have been, let's say, 'inaccurate' and not based on facts.
-
If that is where you get RST info from then it explains a lot.
-
Good for you.:box:
-
For clarification, the Chairman e-mailed mid-afternoon to say he couldn't attend. There was talk of cancelling the meeting but one Board member was on his way from the Midlands and we still had quite a full agenda (it was the week before Manchester) so 11 people decided to go ahead with the meeting. It certainly wasn't behind anyone's back nor did it break any Trust rule that I'm aware of. We held an EGM to explain to members what had happened but I appreciate that not everyone could attend and, with hindsight, perhaps we should have issued something further.
-
You know Mainflyer, in the history of the RST there has probably been in excess of 50 people on the RST Board, some very talented individuals, others perhaps less so but committed Rangers fans anyway. During that time people haven't exactly been queuing up to get involved or offer advice. Think of him as you want but SDM is a very clever man with professional PR consultants behind him. I think it's to our credit thate we are the first port of call for the media, despite them being told by the club not to speak to us. I don't think we have failed. We have created thousands of new shareholders, we have defended the Club and the fans in the media when nobody else would and we continue to act in the Club's and fans' best interests which will hopefully become apparent in the not too distant future.
-
SA, you're making these statements (that I've put in bold) based not on facts but on information you may have gleaned from messageboards and perhaps talking to people whose views may not be entirely objective. For me, the RST was the most important thing in the whole sorry episode. I had no agenda nor did I have any particular loyalty to any individual(s). I'm not sure what you mean about 'the dubious agenda of some of the head honchos' or the fact that 'control was seized'. The Chairman resigned as he felt he no longer had the support of the Board - based on feedback from one person from a meeting that had taken place the previous evening that he had not attended. I personally think that we were all completely behind him but we wanted a bit more communication about what was happening with his discussions with the Club. There was also a suggestion that we had to examine the rules we had in place as a Board, particularly regarding meeting the Club. This suggestion was the one that led to complete meltdown but it was open to interpretation. It's interesting that five people resigned who weren't actually part of the discussion. I'm not slagging these people off in any way, as i said I am still friendly with most of them and respect them. I'm just sad that we couldn't have a clear the air meeting as I think most of the issues could have been resolved. For people to assume that what happened was a pre-meditated act to remove people from the Board is ludicrous, in my opinion of course.
-
It's all pretty academic now I suppose but nothing was ever going to convince them. For clarification, there was never any real discussion on STS other than we were forwarded e-mails sent to all the supporters groups. There was never anything saying 'x is involved in this so we aren't getting involved'. I think it was more a realisation that it was futile under that regime. Just my thoughts though.
-
Craig, the main criticism we had was lack of communication. We now have an e-mail and text facility whereby we can inform members of what's going on. They can also e-mail us through our website. It's not perfect and some work still needs to be done. Regarding the STS project, I'd be lying if I said that there wasn't still some bad feeling. I think many of us were annoyed by the statement issued as much of it was based on supposition rather than fact and it questioned the integrity of those who remained on the Board. However it's in the past now and I have personally spoken to five of the seven resignees and everything has been on a friendly basis. I think we have agreed that there were faults on both sides. I thought that most of the STS report was well written (and one of the contributors is now on our Board) and said so on another forum. However, having been part of the group that presented the Trust's 15 point plan to SDM and Martin Bain, they just aren't (weren't) interested. They think they know best. Perhaps under the new regime this will change.
-
Fair enough if you don't want to answer the questions but I think the answer may have offered some insight into the difficulties the Trust has faced since the start. At the beginning, many saw it as an anti-SDM vehicle and a way to put pressure on him. Many joined the Trust as a result. When it became apparent that this was a small minority view at that time a decision was made to try to work with the regime and we began regular meetings. The anti-Murray brigade didn't like this and others didn't like the fact that we couldn't always divulge what was said. We then went for Board representation but the club messed us about so much and it eventually led to the resignations in 2008. Since then we have been trying to improve things like communications and I think we have done so. I think if we were eg in a Newcastle situation then it would have been easy for a Trust to unite the fans but until recently the vast majority of the fans thought the sun shone out SDM's backside, some still do. Perhaps we should have done things differently, who knows whether that would have made any difference. As for your refund, were you offered a phone call or a meeting to discuss your questions and concerns but you declined?
-
It wasn't meant to be a defence or justification for anything. I'm not claiming we're perfect or haven't made mistakes. Can I ask you another question then? Why did you join the Trust and what did you want it to achieve? (okay that's 2 questions:))
-
Maineflyer, just imagine you have waved a magic wand and the Board (past and present) have disappeared. It's 2003 and you are charge. What actions would you take to engage with the fans, in what direction would you take the Trust and how would you do it?
-
We have never been told not to sing the Sash or Derry's Walls.
-
The Rangers AGM - The More People Talk, the Less They Say
plgsarmy replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
Or SDM? :spl: Oops, looks like you edited your post after I posted. -
The Rangers AGM - The More People Talk, the Less They Say
plgsarmy replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
Frankie, I agree with a lot of that but I didn't think the Chairman's speech was a particularly confident one. He was hesitant many times, said the wrong word and had to correct himself. Martin Bain's was much slicker. -
For example, we agreed to discontinue all reimbursements to Murray Group for management services. Can anyone shed some light on this?
-
Any truth in the rumour that Rangers will be rushing out new pyjamas in time for christmas?:spl:
-
Just to clarify, it was not a disciplinary committee and that word was not in the title.
-
Pete, I am only saying this because I have read numerous posts referring to membership going from 4000 to 1000, 2000-3000 resigning from the Trust. It's simply not true, since Year 1 we have struggled to retain members and I'll give you an explanation for that tomorrow but I'm getting tired now.
-
I think there probably were things wrong to be honest. The main problem probably being that the Chairman resigned the very next morning. The vice-chairman resigned a week later. There was never a 'clear the air' meeting suggested by anyone. Anyway, it's too late to go into this tonight, I'll be back on tomorrow to answer questions. I do not want this to drag on and would prefer to stick to the task in hand but I can't sit back and read things that are simply not true.
-
Perhaps maineflyersworstnightmare would be better.
-
Yes we did keep quiet. Much of it was discussed at the Special General Meeting we held at the time. I think many felt it would be inappropriate to get into a public slanging match with our ex-colleagues so we kept silent, perhaps in hindsight that was wrong. I believe that the Board were all behind Malcolm but many of us were worried because the whole directorship thing was dragging out, given that we were told in January that it was going to the next RFC Board meeting for ratification and we were in May and things hadn't progressed. In addition, the then vice-chairman had sent out an e-mail in April stating that in his opinion we shouldn't even accept the directorship. Jim Templeton's subsequent resignation from the Assembly probably says a lot about this too. There was a lot of frustration around at the time, especially as we had tried to stop openly criticising the regime in public, even when many of us thought it was justified. Far from being a coup, the resignations shocked the remaining Board members. As for my username, what about Fans Reunited.:spl:
-
I think if you look at the accounts of the Trust you will find that the most taken in subscriptions in any one year is circa �£18K.
-
Talk about Chinese Whispers. I've been a member of this forum since November 2006 and this is my first post. One of the main reasons is that I'm pretty embarrassed by my username but I simply can't let this go. Firstly, the meeting to which you refer was a scheduled Board meeting with a full agenda, although the main purpose was to hear from the then Chairman on progress on negotiations with the Club on the Associate Director positions that were going to be offered to him and also the then Assembly President. An e-mail was sent out around 2.30 pm (might have been a bit earlier or a bit later) asking to cancel the meeting as the Chairman had auditors in and couldn't get away. At this point one of the Board members was on route from the Midlands specifically to attend the meeting. Board members were given the option on whether or not to attend, some did, some didn't. Five of the people who subsequently resigned didn't attend the meeting. The directorship was only one thing discussed at the meeting. Others included a matchday experience report, the Assembly, Supporters Direct, Gersave, development of Ibrox, billboard advertising, the Dublin Loyal banner, membership, communication, Manchester, NARSA and RSCs. I'm not on here to defend Mark Dingwall but he has never been an office bearer of the Trust nor has he ever put himself forward as a potential fans representative on the Rangers Board, he simply doesn't have the right credentials for such an office and he is fully aware of this. Everything I have stated is fact. The main 'bone of contention' was with one agenda item which was the formation of a Special Tasks and Purposes Committee. People interpreted this in different ways and ultimately led to the resignation of the Chairman, followed by 6 others. At this point the facts become opinions. Some thought it was an attempt to undermine the Chairman, others saw it as merely trying to make sure that the RST operated within its' rules and kept it's focus. I have no wish to slag off anyone who resigned but I am unwilling for those who remained to constantly be portrayed as the bad guys in all this.