Supporters Trusts in the UK: did you know?

[Norris Cole 0]

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.

 

While there isn't a single untruth in my post, I'm as reluctant as yourself to engage in unproductive tit-for-tat forum bashing.

 

I also share your bemusement that the RST almost exclusively uses just one of many sites as their online platform. By nature surely a supporters trust should be more open-armed than that.

 

Only they can explain such an isolationist policy.

[Union City Blue 0]

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, no I don't feel undermined at all. Quite the opposite actually. As I say, there is no poilcy and I'm making my own choices so I feel absolutely fine. And thank you for your post below, which I'm 100% sure is not aimed at anyone in particluar!

[Frankie 8,825]

 

Only they can explain such an isolationist policy.

 

They have. They won't make the effort to engage with other forums because they don't agree with some of the criticisms on them.

[Frankie 8,825]

Frankie, no I don't feel undermined at all. Quite the opposite actually. As I say, there is no poilcy and I'm making my own choices so I feel absolutely fine. And thank you for your post below, which I'm 100% sure is not aimed at anyone in particluar!

 

As I've said before, I applaud you for taking the time to make the effort.

 

Unfortunately, while you may not feel undermined, to the neutral it certainly looks bizarre that several senior office-bearers are happy to criticise other forums and dismiss them rudely while one or two members do try to take up the torch.

 

Doesn't look like the kind of defined, unifying leadership required to turn around the organisation.

 

In fact, the parallels with the club administration are almost eerie if one looks past the disappointing irony.

[craig 5,199]

 

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.

 

I think that this point is very relevant. But given the changes seen at the Trust, the egos that became involved (before your time UCB) and the fact that as soon as Board representation became more than just a fantasy wish those egos very much stepped up to the plate....... at that point the Trust lost a great deal of the lustre it once held.

 

Unfortunately many of the people who TRULY had the club at heart rather then their own ego and wish to be "the man" saw a turn for the worse in the Trust and resigned, to be replaced with folks who no doubt will do their best but not as strong as those replaced, IMO.

 

I know I am not the only one to say this but I had very high hopes and expectations for the Trust (so much so that on top of purchasing my own lifetime membership I sponsored 10 folks from Gersnet for their annual membership) and when certain individuals became more heavily involved it was almost palpable how the Trust was changing, and not for the better. And I say this as an outsider looking in because I was not aware of any of the "players" when these changes were taking place but it was easily identifiable that changes were, indeed, taking place and it was pretty easy to see that it was for personal agenda in many cases.

 

The Trust COULD be "worthy and relevant" but sadly as long as those who got involved or pushed in a certain direction for personal agendas have tainted what was set out as a very noble organisation.

 

For the Trust to become relevant once more they, ironically, need to improve the TRUST of not just their membership but their potential new members.

 

The Trust really should be for ALL RANGERS SUPPORTERS and if, as Frankie has suggested, that an FF thread has sprung up claiming any negativity toward the Trust is "bile and vitriole" then that does nothing in regard to uniting the online Rangers community or attracting new members to the Trust, unless a strategy of decrying anyone with anything bad to say about Trust is expected to garner new members (and, ironically...... the Trust themselves have said they want the club to be more open and less opposed to supporters... yet they appear to be carrying out a similar "divide and conquer" strategy).

 

I cant speak for any other forum as I am only a member on Gersnet but from ANY discussion I have seen on here it is NOT "bile and vitriole". I hate to single anyone out but MF is our resident anti-Trust guy (sorry MF, couldnt pick a better term at short notice) and even he has actually been very civilised in his questioning and complaints about the Trust. If that is "vile and vitriole" then heaven help anyone who questions the Trust at the AGM - it will become no less of a sham than the club AGM.

 

If they are not open to constructive, meaningful, relevant and honest criticism then they dont have the appropriate people running it.

 

I say all of this with very much an open mind and with a great deal of sadness because, as I said, I had very high hopes for the Trust.

 

I also say this with not one finger of blame pointed at you UCB as you obviously have only just stepped into the breach.

 

If anything I would hope that the Trust would take on board and try to deal with the criticisms suggested rather than the SDM of "deny and deflect" which even the Trust, at one time, were disenchanted with.

 

I just wish that the ONLY agenda that was on EVERYONE'S mind was the CLUB and its BETTERMENT. Sadly it does not appear to be the case.

[Norris Cole 0]

They have. They won't make the effort to engage with other forums because they don't agree with some of the criticisms on them.

 

That's a lame reason for not only backing out of the BBC protest but censoring any mention of it, but hey ho.

[Frankie 8,825]

That's a lame reason for not only backing out of the BBC protest but censoring any mention of it, but hey ho.

 

I agree.

 

Having worked hard for the organisation for 3 years, I can sympathise with Trust board members attempting to make the best out of a difficult voluntary job in the face of occasional unfair criticisms but the comments from Bearwood Bear are equally uncalled for an inaccurate.

 

However, I've said my piece so I'm away to bed!

[craig 5,199]

As an aside...

 

I read the email received from the Trust the other day about the chastising of Chick Young for his reporting and have to admit that the article provided by the Trust and placed on the website was cringeworthy and, allied to that, hypocritical given what Frankie posted earlier about "vitriol and bile".

 

The article, for those who havent read it, says "So in Chick Young�s world, raising reasonable points of concern in an adult fashion = the mob mentality. Perhaps this is what happens when you fawn over rich men and demonstrate all the independent thought of a supermarket trolley�"

 

So now..... the Trust would :

 

1. Suggest that they make nothing but reasonable points of concern (fair enough, but then.... so do people make reasonable points of concern about the Trust and the Trust themselves suggest it is "bile and vitriol" - hypocritical ? You betcha.

 

2. Regardless of whether we dislike Chick Young or not it is, in my opinion, highly unprofessional for an organisation looking for mainstream acceptance to be calling Chick someone with "all the independent thought of a supermarket trolley". Very unprofessional statement in my opinion.

 

When the Trust was originally created such childish (yes, saying that about Chick is childish, even if funny) statements would NOT have been the norm. A better crafted article, still belittling Chick but in a more mature prose, would have been what was released. This is another of those little idiosyncracies which appear to have seen a shift in the Trust. Not for the better IMO.

[Zappa 0]

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

There's a steep learning curve in the art of wrapping quote tags around text.

 

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.

So in your own opinion, is the RST an appropriate organization to facilitate fan control of Rangers FC?

 

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.

You'd like to think so & that's why in my own opinion any group or 'trust' that is to directly represent the Rangers supporters in controlling or even helping to control the club would need to be one that was elected by every single season ticket holder, not a clique of 0.5% of the ST holders.

 

I don't accept that all we can do is...well...nothing.

Nor do I, but doing nothing is often a good course of action depending on the situation & circumstances.

 

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

I only mentioned that you missed that part since it was the next paragraph directly below the section in bullet points that you did quote.

[craig 5,199]

They have. They won't make the effort to engage with other forums because they don't agree with some of the criticisms on them.

 

Do they expect to increase their numbers by excluding anyone who criticises them ? What a hollow policy to have.

 

Healthy, constructive criticism breeds improvement.

 

And no-one, but no-one, can tell me that of all the thousands of FF members there are that there arent any RST dissenters in their ranks.

 

What happens if any of those on FF who have criticisms of the Trust and publicly air them ? Has it happened ? What was the result of such dissention ?