Supporters Trusts in the UK: did you know?

[Super_Ally 0]

I think you are quite correct MF. Just playing a little devils advocate if you will.

 

Bearing in mind it is a voluntary position, in addition to their full-time jobs in their professional lives, if they feel it is difficult to post information on every Rangers forum they will reach more people through FF.

 

Doesn't make that acceptable, but that may well be their chain of thought.

[maineflyer 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 *

Since you've volunteered this insight, I would like to respond on a couple of points.

 

Firstly, it's not really acceptable to simply gloss over the events of the past, since these are intimately tied to the reasons why membership has declined so sharptly in recent years. If you're going to go on to talk about aspiring to build membership, I think you (and he rest of the RST board) need to go back and address the fundamental reasons why the RST has been such an unacceptable option for so many Rangers supporters. What you call "latent support" might equally be described more appropriately as lost members. In essence, you can choose to go in one of two directions ..... you can sweep the past under the carpet in the hope everyone else will follow your lead ..... or you can start addressing the underlying issues that have carved the past in such a profoundly negative manner.

 

Secondly, you say in general terms what you want to do but nothing specific about how you're going to do it. Worse, you are continuing the line that the means is best kept "internal". In other words, don't expect you to share your specific ambitions with the people you now represent or allow them to see how you intend to achieve the improvement you talk about - or judge you on the extent to which these results are actually achieved over time. Sorry, but what you offer above are largely platitudes and will attract no one to the Trust; just my opinion of course.

 

I don't doubt and won't question your intentions but if you want support and trust then you need to go considerably further. Exactly what improvement aims and what specific actions will you be taking to achieve them?

 

You tell me how you're going to achieve his improvement and if it's convincing and credible, I'll back you all the way. How's that?

Edited October 3, 2009 by maineflyer

[maineflyer 0]

I think you are quite correct MF. Just playing a little devils advocate if you will.

 

Bearing in mind it is a voluntary position, in addition to their full-time jobs in their professional lives, if they feel it is difficult to post information on every Rangers forum they will reach more people through FF.

 

Doesn't make that acceptable, but that may well be their chain of thought.

 

I've little doubt the devil would do well enough from your advice.:devil:

[Union City Blue 0]

Since you've volunteered this insight, I would like to respond on a couple of points.

 

Firstly, it's not really acceptable to simply gloss over the events of the past, since these are intimately tied to the reasons why membership has declined so sharptly in recent years. If you're going to go on to talk about aspiring to build membership, I think you (and he rest of the RST board) need to go back and address the fundamental reasons why the RST has been such an unacceptable option for so many Rangers supporters. What you call "latent support" might equally be described more appropriately as lost members. In essence, you can choose to go in one of two directions ..... you can sweep the past under the carpet in the hope everyone else will follow your lead ..... or you can start addressing the underlying issues that have carved the past in such a profoundly negative manner.

 

Secondly, you say in general terms what you want to do but nothing specific about how you're going to do it. Worse, you are continuing the line that the means is best kept "internal". In other words, don't expect you to share your specific ambitions with the people you now represent or allow them to see how you intend to achieve the improvement you talk about - or judge you on the extent to which these results are actually achieved over time. Sorry, but what you offer above are largely platitudes and will attract no one to the Trust; just my opinion of course.

 

I don't doubt and won't question your intentions but if you want support and trust then you need to go considerably further. Exactly what improvement aims and what specific actions will you be taking to achieve them?

 

You tell me how you're going to achieve his improvement and if it's convincing and credible, I'll back you all the way. How's that?

 

MF, thank you for your input.

 

Bear in mind, I did not "volunteer" this information! I was asked directly, then again and then again on RM. Then I had a private conversation with an admin over there and clarified what was being asked. Then you copied the request and indirectly asked me again in here. So I was merely being courteous.

 

Before I actually do move on, I would like to ask you to contemplate in more depth the realities of collaborative working - something which is obviously dear to your heart.

 

Firstly; when you get a new job, or join a new circle, or become a member of a new group of any kind, the way to deal with underlying internal issues is firstly to understand them from as many perspectives as possible. This takes time for an individual in a group of 20. Rushing in is not always the best way.

 

For example I have already floated one new idea in the Trust, but due to my lack of understanding of all the under-lying issues, I have realised that my proposal needs to be developed further so I have changed my mind for the time being. I felt a bit silly, but it reminded me not to forget previous lessons I have learned.

 

Secondly; when you wish to change something which is already established but do not have legitimate power to do so, then you need to persuade others to listen and adapt. This takes time for an individual in a group of 20.

 

For example I have already submitted one new idea in the trust, have received a warm response but also some suggestions and other feedback - also not everyone necessarily agrees with me. So I am doing some work which will enable me to refine and improve the idea, so that when I present it formally it is more likely to have broader support and therefore be adopted.

 

These examples are two of several which I am working on at the moment covering areas as broad as my expertise allows me to. But I also recognise it is a democratic group and it is not possible to agree on everything, and that's just a fact of life - and it's absolutely fine.

 

So instead of voicing your frustration that I am not sharing my developing ideas with the internet yet, may I respectfully suggest that you chew over what might be the best ways to get things done. Building relationships, trust and confidence in a new group is an important feature of collaborative working.

 

I think most current and future members of the Trust will see exactly where I'm coming from, so I am comfortable with what I'm saying and doing.

 

Sorry to disappoint you once more, but there we have it.

[Zappa 0]

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

Yes, the RST is an appropriate organisation. Definitely. The process of elections etc is an unresolved question, I agree. If Rangers supporters controlled the club, then it would be definitely be required to have a full and open election amongst fans, especialy ST holders.

I don't think I agree with you regarding the RST facilitating fan control of the club, since as I mentioned previously, I think that the club themselves would be the most appropriate party to plan, facilitate & organize fan control. Having said that, we're talking extremely loosely about something which is a very complex business model that hasn't even been created yet.

 

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.

Helping to control the club is arguably a little different in the sense that if an organisation seeks and gains influence through its members then naturally the organisation would want the primary say, directly on a one-member-one-vote basis or via its Board. Joining the organisation would enable people to exercise and voice their opinions, although that may not allow everyone to be included for one reason or another. Getting into detail here, but basically I'm saying I totally subscribe to the idea of democracy although I recognise that appropriate mechanisms would have to be put in place to ensure its delivery. I fully appreciate that we have 40,000 ST holders (I am one myself) and that we/they are crucially important.

My own opinion on supporter representation is that no organisation has the right to claim to represent the wider support unless they literally have the direct backing of the wider support. That to me means said organisation conducting surveys at Ibrox Stadium over an extended period of time so as to obtain supporter opinion during good times & bad. Without going into details and logistics of what to specifically aim to achieve & how to achieve it, the basic concept would be one of the organisation aiming to gain the support & full backing of the majority (over 50%) of the people passing through the turnstiles over this period of time.

 

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

Yes I alse agree that sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do. My personal opinion though is, given all that has happened and is happening to our club, that the argument for doing nothing has expired - unless we are happy to just take whatever mystery millionaire we get. Which was the essence of the last half of the OP.

I stand by my original response to this, which is that that is exactly what we have to do. It may be a 'mystery millionaire' or it may be a 'consortium', but either way, it seems to me that we presently have no foundation for doing anything other than doing just that - taking whatever we get in terms of club ownership & control. If the RST is planning to address this, then fair play & keep us posted on how it shapes up.

[Zappa 0]

UCB, something else which is a major concern for me with what we're discussing here is that politics already has a major (and many feel corrupt) influence in Scottish football & I can't help wondering if it would actually be a hellish way for our football club to be run. If (and that's a BIG if) the fans were to eventually own & control the club via some sort of democratic political system, I see there being a major risk of the system having the exact same flaws as practically every democratically elected government in the world - corruption, lies, mistrust, the list goes on & on. Bottom line for me is that in many ways, I feel that the club would actually be in safer hands with another millionaire businessman or a consortium of businessmen depending of course on who he or they are & how much financial strength they have.

[maineflyer 0]

Bear in mind, I did not "volunteer" this information! I was asked directly, then again and then again on RM. Then I had a private conversation with an admin over there and clarified what was being asked. Then you copied the request and indirectly asked me again in here. So I was merely being courteous.

 

You might have been asked but you also had the freedom to accept or decline, so volunteered isn't such a bad description.

 

Before I actually do move on, I would like to ask you to contemplate in more depth the realities of collaborative working - something which is obviously dear to your heart.

 

Firstly; when you get a new job, or join a new circle, or become a member of a new group of any kind, the way to deal with underlying internal issues is firstly to understand them from as many perspectives as possible. This takes time for an individual in a group of 20. Rushing in is not always the best way.

 

For example I have already floated one new idea in the Trust, but due to my lack of understanding of all the under-lying issues, I have realised that my proposal needs to be developed further so I have changed my mind for the time being. I felt a bit silly, but it reminded me not to forget previous lessons I have learned.

Frankly, collaborative working isn't dear to my heart, in any walk of life. Achieving results is. If collaborative working does it then fine but I would never set out to put style over substance.

 

As for the notion of settling in time, that generally relates to tactical issues, not core objectives. If you didn't know what you wanted to change before you agreed to become a board member then I'm at a bit of a loss to know why you did so. I believe it's sound to take time to weigh up how to implement change but it is always a good idea to let people know in advance what it is you've arrived to do. At least that's been my experience and it definitely saves any confusion within and outwith the group. The idea that someone's role in the RST is dependent upon their prior acceptance by the group is a certain recipe for maintaining the status quo rather than achieving he improvement you speak about. Of course, time will tell soon enough.

 

Secondly; when you wish to change something which is already established but do not have legitimate power to do so, then you need to persuade others to listen and adapt. This takes time for an individual in a group of 20.

 

For example I have already submitted one new idea in the trust, have received a warm response but also some suggestions and other feedback - also not everyone necessarily agrees with me. So I am doing some work which will enable me to refine and improve the idea, so that when I present it formally it is more likely to have broader support and therefore be adopted.

Surely you have full legitimacy by virtue of becoming a board member. As for power, you bring that with you from your constituents .... tell people what it is you want to do, get their support, THEN take it to the RST board. If you're looking for power to be accorded by existing board members then it's definitely status quo ahead. Did you agree to join the RST board to accommodate the existing board members or the Rangers fanbase?

 

These examples are two of several which I am working on at the moment covering areas as broad as my expertise allows me to. But I also recognise it is a democratic group and it is not possible to agree on everything, and that's just a fact of life - and it's absolutely fine. So instead of voicing your frustration that I am not sharing my developing ideas with the internet yet, may I respectfully suggest that you chew over what might be the best ways to get things done. Building relationships, trust and confidence in a new group is an important feature of collaborative working.

With respect UCB, it's got naff all to do with democracy, that should be assured by the RST constitution. Every board member should be there to act in the interests of the RST membership and to do so in a way that will attract new members. The Trust isn't a platform for the board to hone their democratic credentials, it's about acting in the interest of Rangers supporters and the club they follow. I'll say it again, results matter more than style points.

 

Sorry to disappoint you once more, but there we have it.

I feel neither disappointment nor any other emotion towards you as a person, I don't know you. My comments simply reflect my own belief about how to get things done, rather than talking about getting things done. That's what I do for a living and it's hard not to apply it to other things that interest me.

 

In the end though, it's you who have 'volunteered', not me, so my thoughts on the subject are merely observations from the sidelines. You're the one who actually has to make a difference.

 

By the way, do you have those membership numbers yet?

[maineflyer 0]

.......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.

 

I hope you won't take this the wrong way buy you currently have 17 posts on RM and 59 on Gersnet. So I guess you have either restricted you online time to FF or you have abandoned previous usernames in your new role as RST board member.

 

Would you therefore mind telling me what other usernames you have been using so that we might all better understand your stance on relevant matters?

[bmck 117]

i think time is showing the rangers supporters trust are more interested in the rangers supporters trust than rangers, the supporters, or any semblance of trust. great concept, but when clearly decent and informed people like UCB have to resort to the "he's entitled to his opinion" rhetoric when he must know that the opinion's nonsense, it's hard to take them seriously. UCB is here to promote the RST, and develop inter-site links, while the other members undermine it on follow follow.

[maineflyer 0]

i think time is showing the rangers supporters trust are more interested in the rangers supporters trust than rangers, the supporters, or any semblance of trust. great concept, but when clearly decent and informed people like UCB have to resort to the "he's entitled to his opinion" rhetoric when he must know that the opinion's nonsense, it's hard to take them seriously. UCB is here to promote the RST, and develop inter-site links, while the other members undermine it on follow follow.

I'd rather he was here to change the RST... didn't he say that somewhere? If he's only here to promote what we already have then it's going to be a long and unsuccessful task. I'm interested to see what actually happens because I seem to remember hearing it all before.