Supporters Trusts in the UK: did you know?

[Union City Blue 0]

Supporters Direct is funded in Scotland by the Scottish Government and in England by the Football Stadia Improvement Fund - the partner organisation of the Football Foundation. It is a publicly-funded organisation which enjoys all-party political support.

 

One of its main objectives is to help ââ?¬Å?influence or change ownership structures so that the interests of Clubs, supporters and the club's communities are more purposefully alignedââ?¬Â.

 

Here are a few facts from the ââ?¬Ë?Supporters Directââ?¬â?¢ Website;

 

� Origins: Founded in the year 2000 as a result a recommendation from the Football Taskforce

� Growth: Supporters� trusts have now been established at over 150 clubs, UK-wide.

� Membership: Over 120,000 people are members of supporters� trusts.

â�¢ Finance: Supportersâ�� trusts have now brought in well over �£20 million of new finance into football and Rugby League.

� Ownership: 15 clubs are in ownership or control by supporters trusts.

� Partnership: Over 110 supporters� trusts now have shareholdings in their clubs.

� Boardroom: Over 45 supporters� trust has directors at clubs. Over 50% of these are directly elected by the membership of the trust.

� Reach: Supporters of nearly 70% of clubs in the top five divisions of football in England, and the top four divisions in Scotland have established supporters� trusts.

� Community: Reorienting clubs to deliver active community engagement.

 

Well, for me, one thing is loud and clear; Rangers FC needs an effective and significantly-sized Supporters Trust now more than ever. And it needs your support. The more Rangers fans who join the Trust, the greater its voice and the greater the likelihood of Rangers FC ultimately being able to opt out of the ââ?¬Å?whoever the next rich guy isââ?¬Â cycle which has gripped football over the last 15-20 years. If that is not possible in the short/medium term, then at least we, the supporters, will be able to have a genuine independent voice in good times and in bad.

 

Rangers supporters deserve an input into the stances our club takes on certain matters and to know what the plans for the future are. We have the right to speak up and shape the club in our image. We do not deserve to be ignored, patronised and marginalised, whether by accident or design.

 

Since when was it genuinely OK for Rangers to be passed between rich people as an executive toy?

 

Are the majority of Rangers fans really just sitting here waiting for the next multi-multi-millionaire to roll-up and buy our fantastic club - and hope he or she is will act with integrity and be tuned-into what it means to be the Rangers?

 

If so, sit back, cross your fingers and take what you get. Whatever it is.

 

phfftt.....

 

 

http://www.supporters-direct.org/page.asp?p=1988

 

http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/

[Frankie 8,825]

UCB:

 

First of all you are completely correct, the Rangers support does need a strong Trust - completely agree with that and most of your post.

 

However, I found the following statement by a senior RST Board member particularly interesting on FF today:

 

If you look at the bile, vitriol and nonsense posted about the RST on two other websites sites in particular, why would anyone give those sites the time of day?

 

Perhaps you could clarify what sites this person meant as he seemed to go onto describe Gersnet after being challenged? While there has been the odd strong debate about the Trust on here I don't think describing these debates as vitriolic or nonsensical is fair.

 

I don't think anyone will deny every site has its problem posters eager to take things personal and miss the bigger picture (and that is worthy of criticism) but I fail to see how such posts are constructive when they write off large swathes of the online community simply to defend using FF as their sole base for judging supporter opinion?

 

To be clear, I'm more than happy for you (or anyone else) to post news about RST activities on this forum. I know you personally and I believe your intentions are honourable. I sincerely hope you can answer any questions the small Gersnet membership put to you.

 

Moreover, may I quote part of your above post which seems to describe senior RST member's thoughts about places other than FF recently.

 

"We do not deserve to be ignored, patronised and marginalised, whether by accident or design. "

 

With respect, you (or more accurately your colleagues) could do well to remember that before they go on some recruiting drive with the kind of attitude I've read on FF today.

[Union City Blue 0]

UCB:

 

First of all you are completely correct, the Rangers support does need a strong Trust - completely agree with that and most of your post.

 

However, I found the following statement by a senior RST Board member particularly interesting on FF today:

 

 

 

Perhaps you could clarify what sites this person meant as he seemed to go onto describe Gersnet after being challenged? While there has been the odd strong debate about the Trust on here I don't think describing these debates as vitriolic or nonsensical is fair.

 

I don't think anyone will deny every site has its problem posters eager to take things personal and miss the bigger picture (and that is worthy of criticism) but I fail to see how such posts are constructive when they write off large swathes of the online community simply to defend using FF as their sole base for judging supporter opinion?

 

To be clear, I'm more than happy for you (or anyone else) to post news about RST activities on this forum. I know you personally and I believe your intentions are honourable. I sincerely hope you can answer any questions the small Gersnet membership put to you.

 

Moreover, may I quote part of your above post which seems to describe senior RST member's thoughts about places other than FF recently.

 

"We do not deserve to be ignored, patronised and marginalised, whether by accident or design. "

 

With respect, you (or more accurately your colleagues) could do well to remember that before they go on some recruiting drive with the kind of attitude I've read on FF today.

 

Hi Frankie, thanks for your thoughts.

 

To be perfectly honest (assuming the remark of FF was intended to fly in your direction), I don't know which of the two sites you are involved in was being referred to by BearwoodBear but I did see the discussion.

 

Obviously it's a slightly tricky one for me this, but I'm working on the basis that there's no RST 'policy' about where its board members can or can't, should or shouldn't contribute - it's left to the discretion of the individual. If someone beleives that discussion has been vitriolic and wishes to opt out on the grounds of taste then in my opinion they have to be free to make that choice.

 

My personal opinion is that, in principal, the entire on-line community should be embraced. I've always felt like that and I am serious about that. That's why I was here before I joined the Trust board, and why I'm still here. I suppose the tone and substance of future discussions will help determine if that remains the case, but we'll have to wait and see. In my experience Gersnet has never had a problem with quality of discussion and generally speaking has a low bam-to-poster ratio

 

For me, it's only about the Rangers, and the Trust represents something worthy and relevant to Rangers. So that's what I'm saying mate, nothing else.

 

Cheers.

[Zappa 0]

Since when was it genuinely OK for Rangers to be passed between rich people as an executive toy?

I'd like to see some solid proof in the form of a professionally constructed business plan/model that Rangers FC would be better off & more importantly, safer in the hands of fan control via the RST or any other Rangers 'Trust' because in my personal opinion the only entity capable of creating a viable plan/model for fan control of Rangers FC is Rangers FC itself & it could only even be considered as a goal worthy of the club's attention after the club is debt free.

 

Are the majority of Rangers fans really just sitting here waiting for the next multi-multi-millionaire to roll-up and buy our fantastic club - and hope he or she is will act with integrity and be tuned-into what it means to be the Rangers?

In a word - yes!! (see my points above for the reason/s)

 

If so, sit back, cross your fingers and take what you get. Whatever it is.

To be equally as frank, that's all any sensible Rangers fan can do & anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded unless they themselves are a 'multi-multi-millionaire' as you put it.

 

 

You missed out this part when you were copying & pasting from Supporters Direct -

 

"Clubs owned or controlled by their supporters' trust:

 

AFC Telford United, AFC Wimbledon, Bramley Buffaloes (RL), Brentford, Cambridge City, Clydebank (Scotland), Enfield Town, Exeter City, FC United of Manchester, Gretna (Scotland), Merthyr Tydfil, Newport (IW) FC, Rochdale Hornets (RL), Runcorn Linnets, Scarborough Athletic."

 

Now, how many of that handful of small clubs were taken over by their fans after having gone into administration? Genuine question!

[Frankie 8,825]

Like I say, I don't doubt your intentions.

 

Unfortunately for you though, the attitude of your peers on the RST board is certainly not going to help you obtain your worthy objectives.

 

As you know I've absolutely no wish to get involved in the petty mud-slinging we've seen elsewhere. That does no-one any good - especially when most in the opposing parties arguably still share the same aims. Ergo, it's a shame the senior office-bearers in the Trust would rather slag off other forums and write off hundreds (possibly thousands) of potential members rather than even attempt to engage them properly.

 

Sure, there will be a few who will prefer to keep any debates disingenuous but I find its better to work with the interested majority than write them off because one won't put in the hard graft to answer often valid criticisms as opposed to vitriol.

 

The Trust may be happy to utilise FF opinion (and they're right to do so given its size and influence) but unless they broaden their approach beyond there then the sentiment in your post will remain nothing more than a pipedream.

 

This isn't 'bile, vitriol or nonsense'. Just reasoned analysis from someone who remains moderate in their approach and genuinely eager to see strong supporters representation for us all.

 

Finally, I'm merely a moderator (or however they currently describe it) on RM. I don't decide their policies or how that site operates. I am one admin here though and that's why I take umbrage at the dismissal of our fellow members just because I help run the place.

[Union City Blue 0]

Like I say, I don't doubt your intentions.

 

Unfortunately for you though, the attitude of your peers on the RST board is certainly not going to help you obtain your worthy objectives.

 

As you know I've absolutely no wish to get involved in the petty mud-slinging we've seen elsewhere. That does no-one any good - especially when most in the opposing parties arguably still share the same aims. Ergo, it's a shame the senior office-bearers in the Trust would rather slag off other forums and write off hundreds (possibly thousands) of potential members rather than even attempt to engage them properly.

 

Sure, there will be a few who will prefer to keep any debates disingenuous but I find its better to work with the interested majority than write them off because one won't put in the hard graft to answer often valid criticisms as opposed to vitriol.

 

The Trust may be happy to utilise FF opinion (and they're right to do so given its size and influence) but unless they broaden their approach beyond there then the sentiment in your post will remain nothing more than a pipedream.

 

This isn't 'bile, vitriol or nonsense'. Just reasoned analysis from someone who remains moderate in their approach and genuinely eager to see strong supporters representation for us all.

 

Finally, I'm merely a moderator (or however they currently describe it) on RM. I don't decide their policies or how that site operates. I am one admin here though and that's why I take umbrage at the dismissal of our fellow members just because I help run the place.

 

Points taken. Sorry if I misunderstood your different roles in RM/Gersnet.

[Norris Cole 0]

FF can talk about "bile and vitriol" all they like.

 

I refuse to take seriously any site which:-

 

(a) Practices rampant censorship

(b) Asterisks out the names of other websites

© Moans about the BBC while isolating itself from the Pacific Quay protest

(d) Chops all posts referring to ©

(e) Invents "threats" from other sites

(f) Knowingly harbours bheasts in increasing numbers

 

FF = Arrogant, paranoid, self-obsessed and hollow to the core.

[Frankie 8,825]

No need to apologise.

 

Seriously though, don't you feel somewhat undermined given the comments of your senior colleagues elsewhere juxtaposed with your sentiments above? I'd understand if this was a one-off comment from an individual but it seems to be official Trust policy not to interact with other forums or their projects.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong as I know you intend to keep posting here (hopefully!) and another board member posts on RM but there doesn't appear to be any great effort than the odd post now and again.

 

I'm also pretty sure Gersnet and RM members would like to know why their opinions have been written off as bile and unworthy of debate.

[Frankie 8,825]

FF can talk about "bile and vitriol" all they like.

 

I refuse to take seriously any site which:-

 

(a) Practices rampant censorship

(b) Asterisks out the names of other websites

© Moans about the BBC while isolating itself from the Pacific Quay protest

(d) Chops all posts referring to ©

(e) Invents "threats" from other sites

(f) Knowingly harbours bheasts in increasing numbers

 

FF = Arrogant, paranoid, self-obsessed and hollow to the core.

 

This isn't FF talking. This is the Rangers Supporters Trust via FF which they seem openly comfortable as having as their only place to debate the organisation.

 

Before we go any further, I want to make clear (and it's not aimed at anyone in particular!), I won't accept any unsubstantiated allegations about persons or organisations in this thread.

 

Bearwood Bear may be happy to generalise about other forums but I'd rather we didn't. There are a lot of good people on FF and while some of us may have a few issues with the place, we should remember that.

[Union City Blue 0]

I'd like to see some solid proof in the form of a professionally constructed business plan/model that Rangers FC would be better off & more importantly, safer in the hands of fan control via the RST or any other Rangers 'Trust' because in my personal opinion the only entity capable of creating a viable plan/model for fan control of Rangers FC is Rangers FC itself & it could only even be considered as a goal worthy of the club's attention after the club is debt free.

 

 

In a word - yes!! (see my points above for the reason/s)

 

 

To be equally as frank, that's all any sensible Rangers fan can do & anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded unless they themselves are a 'multi-multi-millionaire' as you put it.

 

 

You missed out this part when you were copying & pasting from Supporters Direct -

 

"Clubs owned or controlled by their supporters' trust:

 

AFC Telford United, AFC Wimbledon, Bramley Buffaloes (RL), Brentford, Cambridge City, Clydebank (Scotland), Enfield Town, Exeter City, FC United of Manchester, Gretna (Scotland), Merthyr Tydfil, Newport (IW) FC, Rochdale Hornets (RL), Runcorn Linnets, Scarborough Athletic."

 

Now, how many of that handful of small clubs were taken over by their fans after having gone into administration? Genuine question!

 

Shroomz, you would have actually pished yourself if you'd see what I just saw when I hit "preview"

 

So, taking your first point, I understand your hesitancy. Ultimately, it depends on many things including the quality, resources and talent of whichever supporters and their partners have control of the club. But the principal is that the supporters, but definition, want the best for the club and not to use it an a means to some other end. The club has been debt free in the past and could have been again in the recent past if it chose to, but I agree that it ideally needs to return there.

 

I don't accept that all we can do is...well...nothing. If nobody every tried to change any status quo then everything would always be the same. When Rosa Lee Parks refused to get off her seat she didn't say 'well there's nothing I can do' - she said 'I can do something and even although I'm only one person, if enough people join me we can change things'. And she did. Not saying its the same, just making a point.

 

Finally, to be fair I also didn't quote 99.999% of the SD website, so it's a wee bit unfair to say I missed a bit out Unfortunately I don't know the answer to your question, I've not checked tbh.

 

Cheers