Supporters Trusts in the UK: did you know?

[Super_Ally 0]

This looks like a thread Calscot may enjoy. I'm gonna be in over my head soon.

[Union City Blue 0]

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.

 

Loud and clear.

[Bluedell 5,884]

I do somewhat understand using FF to get information across.

 

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

 

Gersnet is small, but 15% of the people who attended the recent RST AGM have been on it today alone. There are other regular posters who attended the AGM who haven't been on today. Sites like gersnet may be small but I'd argue that they do deserve some level of attention from the RST.

 

UCB, you can argue that board members can choose where they wish to post, and you are totally correct. However by not extended the range of websites, it makes the assurances that there would be attempts to increase membership numbers seem hollow.

[Super_Ally 0]

Gersnet is small, but 15% of the people who attended the recent RST AGM have been on it today alone. There are other regular posters who attended the AGM who haven't been on today. Sites like gersnet may be small but I'd argue that they do deserve some level of attention from the RST.

 

I'm not knocking Gersnet, why would I. It's my preferred site for posting. Being small, and admitting the size of the site is not a criticism imo. There's less fuds posting shite for start. In general, the vest majority of contributions are of high quality, even if we don't always agree with view points.

 

In that respect I understand the reason why so much RST information is passed through FF. Reach as many fans as possible as quickly as possible. Kind of a similar arguement to the one Gav and I discussed on the ESPN/Sky thread about the way British companies act.

 

I have already stated, although perhaps not explicitly, that the RST should aim to "spread their word" on as many Rangers sites as possible. And to do so evenly, without preference for one site, would gain them many admirers I suspect.

 

Admitting we are a community shorter on numbers but healthy in terms of quality is no bad thing imo. As you have just informed me a good proportion of attendees at their recent meeting have visited here today. Why would they bother with a smaller site? Suggests a high level of quality in debate and intelligence of the average poster. They make exceptions for Gazza of course. :fish:

 

Ps. Apologies if it looked like I was knocking things here, never my intention.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Super_Ally

[Bluedell 5,884]

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 don't believe UCB should require to disclose his name, and I'd encourage him not to.

 

He is an active poster on a number of Rangers sites and my view is that he has no allegience to either side of the old RST board, which is hopefully a good thing.

[Bluedell 5,884]

S_A, no I didn't think that you were knocking Gersnet. I was just trying to emphasise that although it's small, sites like it and RM do deserve attention from the RST. I'm sure there are other sites equally deserving that I'm not a member of.

[Union City Blue 0]

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 *

[maineflyer 0]

I don't believe UCB should require to disclose his name, and I'd encourage him not to.

 

He is an active poster on a number of Rangers sites and my view is that he has no allegience to either side of the old RST board, which is hopefully a good thing.

 

You're right, of course, and these are not my questions. UCB is a name that has appeared on more than one forum, generally adopting a single-issue posture, and I took it to mean in the quoted RM post whether or not UCB already exists under an alternative username, there or elsewhere.

 

When I see you post on another forum, I know who Bluedell is and where you stand on certain issues, so I kinda know where you're coming from. I also use the same username on all forums - it doesn't reveal my personal name but neither do I confuse the issue by having multiple online identities. If UCB has or continues to exist under alternative username(s) then it seems a reasonable question to ask what these are. As always, no reply is obligated.

 

In any case, it still leave several more pertinent questions.

[maineflyer 0]

I do somewhat understand using FF to get information across.

 

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

 

The size of the website membership isn't the issue. An RST member accessed ia Gersnet is equally as valuable an exercise as one accessed via FF or RM. In any case, the RST should see no value in such judgemen, i's objective should be o communicat eeffectively with every last member by whatever means helps that to happen. Getting the message across is what should be important, not the choice of medium, but the chairman of the RST has again made it perfectly clear he doesn't think like that. QED

 

Edit - I just want to add that if the RST had wanted to take communication with its membership as seriously as it should have done, the RST site would have had it's own forum for effective and direct communication and debate with its members. That they chose never to implement this despite repeated calls for it say as much about the interlocking relationship of FF and RST as I ever could.

Edited October 3, 2009 by maineflyer

[maineflyer 0]

In that respect I understand the reason why so much RST information is passed through FF. Reach as many fans as possible as quickly as possible.

 

The thing is hough that the objective from the very start should have been to reach out to ALL fans, members and potential members alike. Why would anyone have thought it acceptable to do anything less?