Supporters Trusts in the UK: did you know?

[maineflyer 0]

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.

 

You're having a laugh, aren't you? Surely you don't actually believe you can come out with stuff like this that flies in the face of everything we've seen over the years and expect to be taken seriously? I realise that your assigned task (oh yes) is to counter the growing consensus that the RST simply isn't working but you need to step a little closer to the light if you're to give yourself any chance whatsoever.

 

"The Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust". A wonderful example of the truth masking reality, factually correct but otherwise entirely inaccurate. An ugly joke in fact.

 

Who leaps to defend the RST against nasty websites? Not Stephen Smith, chairman of the RST board but his alter ego Bearwood Bear, the FF fixer and keyboard assassin. Where does he do this defending - not from his lofty RST perch, nothing at all to say on the RST website - but from his more accustomed position on FF.

 

It reminds me of the same RST chairman who wrote to me shortly after assuming his present office, in response to a question I had left on the RST website. The new chairman answered my query at great length and with much enthusiasm and promises - but not as chairman of the RST. No, the new chairman presented himself in his finest FF guise without even reference to the RST.

 

It also reminds me of at least two occasions when he RST represented me at meetings with the Rangers chairman, after which the Trust's position and meeting outcomes were outlined not on the RST website or directly to RST members, but on FF, with FF grandees speaking for the RST. No such courtesy was afforded oher website forums mind you, just FF. But remember, "The Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust". Except, de facto, it is.

 

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. Wonderful, we now have proof by exception. There are some FF members who don't support the RST, so there cannot be a connection between the two. I knew a celtic supporter once who wasn't a catholic, ergo there cannot be any connection between celtic and the catholic community, brilliant. No, it's not brilliant, it's actually insulting.

 

Let me offer some suggestions how you might resurrect the reputation of the RST, build the membership and start living up to the aspirations and goals of the Supporters Trust. Behave openly and honestly, stop spinning for the sake of manipulating opinion, act in unison with other supporters' groups, break the exclusive arrangement with a single preferred fans' website and work in an evenhanded manner with all. Consult with your membership, consult with the wider fanbase, publish clear aims and targets, monitor and report progress against these targets on a regular basis. And above all, be prepared to be judged by results rather than style and stop whining about criticism. It's not your Trust, it's Rangers Supporters' Trust.

[Super_Ally 0]

I do somewhat understand using FF to get information across.

 

In terms of numbers it vastly outweighs Gersnet and probably all other websites.

 

However, to use FF as the primary source for releasing information is open to criticism. Ideally I guess it would be released by RST sources first. I.e. The RST website and perhaps mass email.

 

After which, as other websites are a good place to reach non-members and spread word of your work (and potentially attract new members); secondly posting releases onto other forums including FF and all other forums where RST members are active.

 

Aiming to time these postings so that FF does not get preferential treatment may appease many people.

 

I'm not overly concerned how the RST chooses to conduct its business. And perhaps it is easier to post info on FF to reach as many fans as quickly as possible. But I guess the reason for my apathy is I am no longer convinced by the work the RST aims to achieve. As I say though, I can see why it infuriates other fans who may feel marginalised or neglected.

[craig 5,199]

I think most would agree that the links between FF and the Trust are inextricable.

 

I probably was the one that started the discussion on that, oops.

 

For now I would prefer if we focussed on the Trust aspect although I do find it difficult to separate the two for the reasons you gave above MF.

 

The Trust really need to go back to basics for any chance of success IMO. Look at the reasons they were formed in the first place, look at some of the initial headway made and why that happened.

 

Not accepting criticism will get the Trust nowhere. Making unprofessional public statements will get the Trust nowhere. Excluding other online communities due to not accepting the criticism will not get them the supporter unity they profess to crave.

 

Is there a future for the Trust ? Of course there is, but they need to get back to those basics, leave the egos at the door and be open, frank and honest with the WHOLE membership.

 

As a life member I find it incredulous that they can have RST discussion of meetings with the club on any other place than the RST website. Not all Trust members are members of FF so by airing RST topics on FF they are not only excluding other online communities but also some of the very members who "pay their way" and whom the Trust are supposed to be representing.

 

It is a long, arduous road back to where the Trust once were held in reasonably high esteem - I wish you well in the task UCB.

[Super_Ally 0]

As a life member I find it incredulous that they can have RST discussion of meetings with the club on any other place than the RST website. Not all Trust members are members of FF so by airing RST topics on FF they are not only excluding other online communities but also some of the very members who "pay their way" and whom the Trust are supposed to be representing.

 

Good point, I didn't even consider it from that point of view.

 

I don't envy UCB his work as a volunteer just looking at this thread alone btw.

[craig 5,199]

I do somewhat understand using FF to get information across.

 

In terms of numbers it vastly outweighs Gersnet and probably all other websites.

 

However, to use FF as the primary source for releasing information is open to criticism. Ideally I guess it would be released by RST sources first. I.e. The RST website and perhaps mass email.

 

After which, as other websites are a good place to reach non-members and spread word of your work (and potentially attract new members); secondly posting releases onto other forums including FF and all other forums where RST members are active.

 

Aiming to time these postings so that FF does not get preferential treatment may appease many people.

 

I'm not overly concerned how the RST chooses to conduct its business. And perhaps it is easier to post info on FF to reach as many fans as quickly as possible. But I guess the reason for my apathy is I am no longer convinced by the work the RST aims to achieve. As I say though, I can see why it infuriates other fans who may feel marginalised or neglected.

 

All valid points. The most important of which, in my opinion, is that there could easily be a widespread fostering of opinion that the RST is FF-run due to what you say in regards to timing of releasing information.

 

One way around that, as you say, is to have the information disseminated on the RST website and by mass email from the RST PRIOR to being discussed anywhere else.

 

I am sure that the RST could have representation on ALL the online forums and those members could then create a thread and discussion takes place on ALL of those forums - openly, honestly and frankly. And the Trust also have to stop being "SDM-like" and accept constructive criticism rather than try to suppress it.

 

Constructive criticism is a GOOD thing.

[craig 5,199]

I don't envy UCB his work as a volunteer just looking at this thread alone btw.

 

Me neither. But I have genuine respect for anyone who has taken on what is a thankless task and a monumentous one at that.

 

As UCB says earlier in the thread.... it only takes one person to make a change - and with the ideals that UCB has I truly hope he is that one person.

[maineflyer 0]

Good point, I didn't even consider it from that point of view.

 

I don't envy UCB his work as a volunteer just looking at this thread alone btw.

 

But he did volunteer and if he didn't do so with his eyes open then presumably it was ill judged. To be brutally honest, failing to acknowledge past problems and even trying to deny what we all know to be true isn't much of a start.

 

He made the same OP over on RM and received the following questions in response....

 

Welcome and my fiirst question is what is your real name?

 

What is your background and are you a member of long standing of the RST and any Rangers fansite?

 

Where were you when the old RST Board split and where was your allegiance?

 

Is your last few sentences your sole reason for members like myself to rejoin the RST or can you explain why you and the current board of the RST are different from the one that emerged after the serious infighting of the past that led to mass resignations of good people who are very much a part of RM?

 

Sorry to appear negative but I would like an answer to these questions before going any further.

 

I also think it would be most useful to know the answers to these questions.... purely in the interests of open debate of course. I wonder if the same post was offered on VB and other sites?

Edited October 3, 2009 by maineflyer

[Union City Blue 0]

You're having a laugh, aren't you? Surely you don't actually believe you can come out with stuff like this that flies in the face of everything we've seen over the years and expect to be taken seriously? I realise that your assigned task (oh yes) is to counter the growing consensus that the RST simply isn't working but you need to step a little closer to the light if you're to give yourself any chance whatsoever.

 

"The Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust". A wonderful example of the truth masking reality, factually correct but otherwise entirely inaccurate. An ugly joke in fact.

 

Who leaps to defend the RST against nasty websites? Not Stephen Smith, chairman of the RST board but his alter ego Bearwood Bear, the FF fixer and keyboard assassin. Where does he do this defending - not from his lofty RST perch, nothing at all to say on the RST website - but from his more accustomed position on FF.

 

It reminds me of the same RST chairman who wrote to me shortly after assuming his present office, in response to a question I had left on the RST website. The new chairman answered my query at great length and with much enthusiasm and promises - but not as chairman of the RST. No, the new chairman presented himself in his finest FF guise without even reference to the RST.

 

It also reminds me of at least two occasions when he RST represented me at meetings with the Rangers chairman, after which the Trust's position and meeting outcomes were outlined not on the RST website or directly to RST members, but on FF, with FF grandees speaking for the RST. No such courtesy was afforded oher website forums mind you, just FF. But remember, "The Trust is not FF and FF is not the Trust". Except, de facto, it is.

 

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. Wonderful, we now have proof by exception. There are some FF members who don't support the RST, so there cannot be a connection between the two. I knew a celtic supporter once who wasn't a catholic, ergo there cannot be any connection between celtic and the catholic community, brilliant. No, it's not brilliant, it's actually insulting.

 

Let me offer some suggestions how you might resurrect the reputation of the RST, build the membership and start living up to the aspirations and goals of the Supporters Trust. Behave openly and honestly, stop spinning for the sake of manipulating opinion, act in unison with other supporters' groups, break the exclusive arrangement with a single preferred fans' website and work in an evenhanded manner with all. Consult with your membership, consult with the wider fanbase, publish clear aims and targets, monitor and report progress against these targets on a regular basis. And above all, be prepared to be judged by results rather than style and stop whining about criticism. It's not your Trust, it's Rangers Supporters' Trust.

 

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?

[Super_Ally 0]

But he did volunteer and if he didn't do so with his eyes open then presumably it was ill judged. To be brutally honest, failing to acknowledge past problems and even trying to deny what we all know to be true isn't much of a start.

 

He made the same OP over on RM and received the following questions in response....

 

Welcome and my fiirst question is what is your real name?

 

What is your background and are you a member of long standing of the RST and any Rangers fansite?

 

Where were you when the old RST Board split and where was your allegiance?

 

Is your last few sentences your sole reason for members like myself to rejoin the RST or can you explain why you and the current board of the RST are different from the one that emerged after the serious infighting of the past that led to mass resignations of good people who are very much a part of RM?

 

Sorry to appear negative but I would like an answer to these questions before going any further.

 

I also think it would be most useful to know the answers to these questions.... purely in the interests of open debate of course. I wonder if the same post was offered on VB and other sites?

 

I guess he should have the same right to anonymity as the rest of us when using messageboards. When representing the RST that is a different story, but when merely passing on RST and in attempting to be helpful he has the right to anonymity imo. Particularly with the way the *******s conduct themselves with compelte disregard for the laws of this country.

 

I wouldn't want to speak any more on other points for him. It is upto him what he decides to share and based on that how much trust and credence we put into what he says in future.

 

Stuff about his previous position within the trust and other Rangers organisations in addition to his "allegiances" due to the split may be relevant and interesting, but whatever UCB's position on that split it may be better for him to move on with a clean slate if you like (as he may have had nothing at all to do with it) and as such digging up old ground may prevent him from getting on with the here and now and what he can contribute.

 

I wouldn't say you are being negative there, just asking obvious questions, some of which it may or may not be possible for UCB to give full and honest answers if he is to maintain good working relations and focus within the trust. Raking over old ground may hold the trust back rather than driving it on. Particularly when, I believe, the split had fuck all to do with UCB.

[maineflyer 0]

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?

 

There's no "bad start" from where I'm standing and nothing to change in anything I've posted. You have to decide what if anything you want to take from my posts or those of other members of this and other sites. You stepped up to the plate, for which you've received nothing but commendation. You chose to issue the Op in this and other sites for a reason and others have responded. Were you expecting something different?

 

Tell you what, less generic promotion and more specific policies would probably earn a more favourable response, if that's what pulls your chain.